Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-26 - Agenda Packet - PC-HPCJULY 263 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Oaxaca Vice Chairman Macias Commissioner Fletcher Commissioner Munoz Commissioner Wimberly B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals embers of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. C1 Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2017 C2 Consideration to adopt Adjourned Meeting (Workshop) Minutes of June 28, 2017 Page 1 of 5 JULY 26, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA D. SCHEDULED MATTERS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chairman may open the meeting for public input. D1. SELECTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION/PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICER POSITIONS D2. SELECTION OF THE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE D3. SELECTION OF THE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. E1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 - IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 611,573 square foot industrial building on a vacant parcel of 26.63 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District on the north side of Arrow Route, about 1,200 feet east of Interstate 15, and about 2,600 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue — APN: 0229-021-60. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. E2. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to revoke Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, approved in error on November 9, 2016, for a request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007- 00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209- 201-19 and 20. On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Page 2 of 5 %JULT 4V1 ACV I / HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Declaration of environmental impacts for DRC2007-00951. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. Continued from June 28, 2017 and re -advertised. E3. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) to allow for the demolition of two residential structures, both previously conditioned for off -site relocation, for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15164 which does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Initial Study. Continued from June 28, 2017 and re -advertised. F. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES: COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: G. ADJOURNMENT I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 20, 2017, at least seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Page 3 of 5 JULY 26, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Lois J. Schrader Planning Commission Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Page 4 of 5 JULY 265 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,662 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Page 5 of 5 r• iF' 3a S 4r Vicinity Map Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting JULY 26, 2017 - - _.- i- - - - - --------- E a U Q 2 = y I U I V) C 1 N 1 �$t 77 a /Base se Line J 9 Church Church t Ahill Foothill E m i E t% a {Arrow row _ c °' J4 rsey o 8th pW m 0 o c 6th w — C7 6th t € y x = Ath ¢ d _ m _ _� g 4th ine N A ® !r Meeting Location: E1 City Hall/Council Chamber M 10600 Civic Center Drive E1: Design Review DRC2016-00726—IPT Arrow Route DC, LP E2: Design Review Mod Revocaton DRC2017-00480—Biane Family Properties E3: Design Review Mod DRC2017-00481—Biane Family Properties JUNE 285 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 7:01 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Oaxaca X Vice Chairman Macias X Commissioner Fletcher X Commissioner Munoz _X_ Commissioner Wimberly _X_ Additional Staff Present: Candyce Bumett. City Planner, Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney, Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, Mike Smith, Senior Planner, Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner, Donald Granger, Senior Planner Jennifer Palacios Once Specialist It B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals embers of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. None. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 of 14 Cl-Pgl JUNE 287 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2017 Commissioner Fletcher stated a correction with his comment on C1 page 2. He said in commercial areas he did not think there should be advertising on the internet and no fees for admission. The correction is residential areas not commercial areas. Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Macias abstain) to amend and adopt the minutes reflecting the correction of Commissioner Fletcher's comment on item C1 page 2 of June 14. 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes D. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. Items D1 and D2 were heard concurrently. D1. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 - BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to revoke Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, approved in error on November 9, 2016, for a request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007- 00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues, APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for DRC2007-00951. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Page 2 of 14 C1-Pg2 JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO JULY 26, 2017. D2. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00481 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) to allow for the retention of two existing residential structures on site for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10,41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15164 which does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Initial Study. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO JULY 26, 2017. Tom Gratin, Associate Planner, stated the application pertains to a modification of a previously approved project. The request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007- 00951 was incorrectly written and he is recommending both applications be continued to July 26, 2017 so the Planning Commission and Public have a better understanding of what the project entails He noted the descriptions will change and the project will be re -advertised. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no response, allowed the public hearing to remain open to the July 26, 2017 meeting date. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0 to continue Design Review Modification DRC2017-00480 and DRC2017-00481 to the July 26" meeting. Items D3 and D4 were heard concurrently. D3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20105 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. — A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 82 acres into five (5) parcels located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 6th Street, south of the Metrolink/BNSF rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues -APN: 0209-272-20. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Page 3 of 14 C1—Pg3 JUNE 287 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre - Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 2017. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO AN UNSPECIFIED DATE. D4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20073 - LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. - A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 84 acres into twenty-seven (27) parcels and one (1) lettered lot located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues - APNs: 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre -Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. CONTINUED FROM JUNE14, 2017. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO AN UNSPECIFIED DATE. Mike Smith, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of both items to a date unspecified to allow time for further discussion of the conditions of approval. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no response, closed the public hearing. He said the items will be re -noticed when a date is specified. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0 to continue Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20105 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073 to an unspecified date. The items will be re -advertised prior to the public hearing. Page 4 of 14 Cl-Pg4 JUNE 289 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA D5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2017-00482 — GERDAU — A request to modify the conditions of approval specifically related to required public improvements for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009, and Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2013-00992 approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014, for the existing Gerdau Steel Plant in the Heavy Industrial (HI) District located at 12459-B Arrow Route; APN: 0229-131-19. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009, and an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer stated the application addresses conditions of approval for installation of street frontage improvements. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing. Larry Rothman, Engineering Manager for Gerdau, thanked staff for working through the challenges and expressed their appreciation for the Planning Commission hearing their project. Chairman Oaxaca closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher asked staff what is the conflict with the neighboring property. Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer stated the conflict is the existing overhead utilities. If the pole was to be relocated the overhead utilities would cross over the structure and there is not an existing easement for that. - they are proposing to move the pole at a later date. Page 5 of 14 C1—Pg5 JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Chairman Oaxaca asked what city would be responsible for the new easement. Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer said at a future date when the property to the west develops the structure will no longer be standing, thereby correcting the current concern of overhanging wires. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, carried 5-0 to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2017-00482. D6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN - A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet comprised of warehouse and office area for distribution purposes on a 17-acre site in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue - APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Dominick Perez, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Vice Chairman Macias asked a question about the mitigation measure that was added to do a survey. He said Fish and Wildlife was on -site and determined a survey to be done but he asked when the survey is going to be done. He expressed concern that the developer would not be able to proceed at a later time if a habitat of species is found. Dominick Perez, Associate Planner stated a number of surveys were done over the last 4 or 5 years. The surveys were done by Southern California Edison and they were all negative as to the presence of the species existing on -site Tom Magill, Biologist for site said Fish and Wildlife had four negative surveys. The species requires 2 years of protocol surveys and if a year is skipped, the process has to be started all over again. He said Fish and Wildlife concurs the species is not currently there but they want a clearance survey for this year. The applicant stated it will be negative. Page 6 of 14 Cl-Pg6 JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissioner Fletcher asked if the survey will be completed before grading. Tom Magill said it will be. Vice Chairman Macias asked if this fits in the developer's timeline. Tom Magill said yes it his understanding. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no response, closed the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward with any comments. John Atwell with Oakmont Industrial Group thanked staff and said he looks forward to starting on this project. Commissioner Munoz said he sees no problem with the project and appreciates staff and the applicant that have worked through the Fish and Wildlife process. He said it is a good project. Commissioner Wimberly concurred and saw no issues with the project. Commissioner Fletcher said it is in a good location and he likes the architectural design. Vice Chairman Macias said it is a straight forward project and saw no problem now that his question was answered pertaining to the Fish and Wildlife Survey. Chairman Oaxaca thanked staff and the applicant for their diligence with the process presented and answering the concerns raised. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0 to adopt the resolution approving Design Review DRC2015-00797 with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. D7. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 - JUNG & JUEN, LLP - An appeal of a City Planner decision approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 to operate a drive-thru coffee shop, and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 to reduce the required on -site parking to Page 7 of 14 C1-Pg7 JUNE 287 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA allow additional food uses related to the prior approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008- 00464 for a 6,484 square foot addition to the Haven Village commercial center located in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue - APN: 201-272-23. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 — Existing Facilities - which covers the operation, permitting and leasing of existing structures and as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — which covers exceptions in land use limitations. Donald Granger, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Fletcher asked what the approval process was and if permits were discussed prior to the development and if the owner was aware of this issue. Mr. Granger, said they were aware of the parking structure ratios that were required and they do have adequate parking for the retail use but not for the food uses. That is why they had to come back for the entitlements because the original entitlement required that if the applicant wanted to do a drive thru, the request would have to be evaluated. It is all about the ultimate land use. Commissioner Fletcher said if they know they are going after a tenant that is a restaurant use rather than retail is there some responsibly on their part to ask the question before the project is built. Mr. Granger said yes there is a responsibility on the applicant but also an opportunity in the Development Code that doesn't stop an applicant from filing for a reduction and the applicant has to set forth the evidence that would show the reduction is justified. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing and invited the Appellant to come forward to speak Page 8 of 14 C1—Pg8 JUNE 289 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Ray Patel owner of Trader Joe's building stated he is appealing the applicants request because there is not enough parking for an additional restaurant. He stated the current tenants already have issues with parking for their customers. Roger Yuen representing Dual Family Trust owners of Parcel 2 discussed the background on the property. The CC&R's amendment of 1986 stated the right of the parcel owner to make objections related to new development. He said within the same section of the CC&R's there is a prohibition for Parcel 9 to cause a reduction in the parking ratio and not to interfere with traffic circulation. The drive-thru for the proposed Coffee Bean exits onto Corky's, Trader Joe's and Daiso parking, causing a traffic circulation problem for the center. He said the CC&R's govern a private contract between the Parcel Owners however, the City is taking an active participant roll by issuing permits and occupancy permits and benefitting from sales tax generated from the new development. He maintained that by the City granting these approvals he feels the City is taking rights granted under Parcel 2 and shifting these rights to Parcel 9 granting them extra parking notwithstanding the fact there are existing limitations in the CC&R's. If the appeal is denied he asked the Planning Commission to withhold issuance of occupancy permits until the City Council appeal is exhausted and time is provided after that hearing for them to take subsequent appropriate action. Commissioner Fletcher asks if the Parcels are an association. Roger Yuen said yes each of the 9 Parcels are subject to the same CC&R's. There is a common area of collections. Owner of Parcel 1 is designated as the management company. Chairman Oaxaca asked staff if the CC&R's call out a specific process for resolving disagreements between the parties. Mr. Yuen said there is a percentage vote where the CC& R's can be amended. Chairman Oaxaca asked if there has been an attempt to resolve this issue through a vote with the members of the association governed by the CC&R's. Mr. Yuen said the CC&R's provide absolute right for the owner of Parcel 2 to approve any reduction of parking in Parcel 9. If the owner of Parcel 2 wants to negotiate that is fine, if not Page 9 of 14 C1—Pg9 JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA and they believe it has an impact on Trader Joe s and Daiso tenants then they have an obligation to reduce the impacts on the available parking. Commissioner Fletcher asked if a property owner wants a reduction in parking, do they need 100% approval of the other owners and if it is stated in the CC&R's. Mr. Yuen said no. There is a statement in the staff report that states that but there is a specific authorization for the owner of Parcel 2 that can express the right to make this objection or require approval for every reduction in parking. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there was any request made prior to the application to the City. Mr. Yuen said they had a preliminary discussion that did not go anywhere. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the parking requirements mirror the City's parking requirements. Mr. Yuen said the language in the CC&R's states there is not a reduction in the permitted parking ratio. Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney states the CC&R's do not address the Development Code regulations to parking. The CC&R's are a separate private document and there is an enforcement mechanism for them and that is a private civil action in court. He said anything the Planning Director has done or what the Commission does tonight does not relinquish that remedy if the appellants chooses to exercise that. Donovan Collier representing the applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and stated he is in agreement with the recommendations in the staff report. As for the CC&R's they believe there is not violation with the parking issue and if there was the applicant would not have pursued the property. Edward Miller, Senior Traffic Engineer for Advantec Consultant Engineers said he was asked by the client to look at the existing conditions on the site. He said he put a drone out on Page 10 of 14 C1-Pg10 JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Saturday, June 17, 2017 around 1.00 p. m. and counted 173 available parking spaces. In Zone 1 there were 48 available parking spaces, zone 2 had 45 available parking spaces. In front of Daiso and Trader Joe's there were 25 available parking spaces, zone 4 there were 45 available parking spaces and behind the building there were 30 available parking spaces. Chairman Oaxaca asked if there are members of the public to provide additional comments, seeing that there were none closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher stated he shops in the shopping center all the time. It is popular, crowded and does have poor circulation. He said he was not sure if adding another restaurant in the center would complicate the stacking issue entering the complex. He said he can see both sides of this situation. Vice Chairman Macias agreed with Commissioner Fletcher. He too is a frequent shopper in the center and at peak times had to park further out but is okay with the extra walking. Ultimately it is up to the private entities to resolve things and adjust to the City requirements. He said he understands and sympathizes with the individual property owners that have an existing system and all of a sudden is complicated. Commissioner Munoz said he understands the issues in the center and has shopped when it is crowded and not crowded. He said given the information and the situation shared, he agreed with staffs recommendation. Commissioner Wimberly stated he did not believe the private entities CC&R's have the right to impose their will or wish upon the City's right to grant the entitlements. He said once the entitlement has been granted and those particular entities are in the property, then the CC&R's would take effect for those entities but those regulations are not imposed on the City. Also the center has open parking which means there are no entitlements for parking because the customers have the right to park in any of the zones. He agreed with staffs recommendation. Chairman Oaxaca agreed with staffs recommendation based on the information provided. He said there seems to be a mechanism within the CC&R's document to settle disputes and disagreements with the tenants. Page 11 of 14 C1-Pg11 JUNE 285 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney stated the Planning Commission is a quasi -adjudicative by enforcing the Development Code and under the Development Code it allows the City Planner to make certain findings before issuing the entitlements. He said the Commission is charged to review whether the City Planner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0 to adopt the resolution denying Appeal DRC2017-00437. E. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES Commissioner Munoz updated the'Commission regarding Senate Bill 649 which promises to allow local cities to keep their discretion over "small cell" installations in their communities. Commissioner Munoz noted the reality is for SB 649 the city loses authority over the wireless industries infrastructure. He said the reason why League of California Cities Transportation, Communication and Public Works Policy Committee voted not to support, but will support the right to communities for self-determination. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Fletcher commented on the cell phone tower east of Haven Avenue and south of the 210-Freeway. The upper portion of the structure is missing and is requested staff to look into correcting the issue. F. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:44 P.M to a workshop held in the Rains Room to discuss PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2016-00626 - THERALDSON HOSPITALITY. Page 12 of 14 C1-Pgl2 M JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 22, 2017 seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Lois J. Schrader Planning Commission Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Page 13 of 14 C1—Pg13 JUNE 289 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,662 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Page 14 of 14 C1—Pg14 JUNE 28, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M.* — CALL TO ORDER 8:51 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Oaxaca X Vice Chairman Macias X Commissioner Fletcher _X_ Commissioner Munoz _X_ Commissioner Wimberly _X_ Additional Staff Present Candyce Burnett, City Planner Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer: Rob Ball, Fire Marshall; Dominick Perez, Associate Planner. Mike SnWN� Senior Planner; Jennifer Palacios Office Specialist 11 B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals embers of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. u,, C. DISCUSSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION C1 PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2016-00626 — THERALDSON HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT (THD) — A Pre -Application Review of the architecture for a proposed commercial development consisting of two (2) 5-story hotels totaling two hundred sixteen Page 1 of 6 C2—Pgl JUNE 285 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (216) rooms and one (1) restaurant pad with a floor area of 8,000 square feet (including an outdoor dining area of 2.000 square feet) on a parcel of about 297,000 square feet (6.8 acres), that is part of a vacant property consisting of three (3) vacant parcels with a combined area of 25.6 acres (not including street dedications which will be vacated), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street in the Industrial Park (IP) District, Haven Avenue Overlay District; APN: 0210-081-21. Dominick Perez, Associate Planner gave a presentation and stated the applicant is back in front of the Planning Commission to present more detailed architecture as requested to do so by the Planning Commission at the last Pre -Application Review in December 2016. He noteu the topics for discussion include: Enhanced glazing, various color schemes, if the plotting of the Hotel is the best layout, and vehicular access off of Haven Avenue. Don Cape with Tharaldson Hospitality Development thanked staff and said he looked forward to making this development happen. He clarified that there will be a restaurant that they feel fits best as well as what the City feels is best. Scott Brown with DesignCell Architecture spoke about the architecture and materials of the hotels. Mr. Brown presented a fiber cement panel that looks like a wood panel to be added to the tower elements and entries on both hotels. He said the Staybridge Suites color pallet is darker to modernize the look of the hotel and landscape lighting is softer to make it more comfortable for the guests staying in the hotel. He said the Home2 Suites represents the same elements with their signature element of lime green around the sign and also used sparingly around the side elements with soft frosted lighted glass behind the signage. Commissioner Wimberly expressed concern about the full view coming north on Haven Avenue. He said all he sees is trees coming up Haven Avenue; looking east coming into the property he did not see any signature statement. Commissioner Fletcher asked to see a new rendering with the landscape and buildings that have the existing monument sign. Mike Smith, Senior Planner said staff wanted to make the Commissioners aware of the building plotting and how the buildings are orientated on the property. He said staff is asking if the Commissioners are comfortable with the plot layout. Page 2 of 6 C2-Pg2 JUNE 28, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissioner Munoz said he lhouyht they were done with the plotting and where the buildings are today including the restaurant have met the requirements. Chairman Oaxaca asked what treatment could be considered for that corner that will mitigate the lack of a significant restaurant structure that will not be there when the hotels are built that will help avoid the "airport look". He suggested there may be other treatments that are disposable to stand in place that gives a feel of something appealing in the meantime. Mr. Cape said they may be able to use the TOD Tax collected from the hotels to fund this. Vice Chairman Macias said in the meantime the biggest feature will be the parking lot minus the restaurant. He said they should think of a way to enhance that area in the meantime in lieu of the restaurant. He said they should think through the issue of the trees; he said he likes them. He said this is the entrance to the city and it was always meant to be the gateway to the city. He agreed with Commissioner Munoz that he is already comfortable with what is presented with respect to the plotting. He said they should look to a more refined entrance way. Mr. Cape said if they had a restaurant user ready to go before the grading operations, then the lack of landscape on the restaurant site would not be a concern. He said they would not want to have a dirt pad; they would have to landscape to satisfy their guests. He said the monument bookends the restaurant site and that is what drove the selection of plant material, this was a continuation of the monument across the street. He said they would landscape the area until they are able to bring that use forward. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with all of staffs concerns and the landscape rendering presented. He said he feels better that the applicant is confident a restaurant will be placed. Chairman Oaxaca said staff did bring up recommendations of the materials. He suggested they go back and work on the richer aspect of materials in the key locations to tie them together. He suggested they could use the entrance treatment on both hotels on the west elevation to south and north and even east to give a 360 degree feel. Mr. Brown said they will articulate the south end of both hotels with nicer materials Page 3 of 6 C2-Pg3 JUNE 28, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Mr. Perez said to confirm, the Commission wants additional enhancement in that area until the restaurant pad is developed. He said the site changes in the area for the plotting is agreeable. He said the color schemes are workable and the glazing provided is good. He noted the recommendation from staff that the Staybridge Suites should include additional enhancements and decorative material. Mr. Cape said they will add that additional treatment on the south end. Commissioner Munoz said they have done good work with staff and moving in the right direction. Mr. Perez received direction from the Commission that the tower features should be enhanced along the south side of both buildings. Mr. Cape said staff has been great and fantastic to work with and this is the product of their working relationship. D. ADJOURNMENT 9:53 P.M. I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 22, 2017, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. ILSI Lois J. Schrader Planning Commission Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 of 6 C2-Pg4 JUNE 283 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTFS RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. Page 5 of 6 C2—Pg5 JUNE 28, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,662 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www,CityofRC.us. Page 6 of 6 C2—Pg6 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 26, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner INITIATED BY: Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: SELECTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION/PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICER POSITIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should consider the current Chairman and Vice Chairman positions and by minute action, either affirm the existing membership or select new members. The term is for 1-year reviewed annually. BACKGROUND: The Administrative Regulations for the Planning Commission provide for the Commission to select its own officers. Each year the Commission selects a Chairman and Vice Chairman to serve a 1-year term from amongst themselves. Commissioner Oaxaca became Chairman and Commissioner Macias became Vice Chairman in July of 2017. CB/LS D1—Pg 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • �s�1 REPORTSTAFF DATE: July 26, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planne® INITIATED BY: Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: SELECTION OF THE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should consider the current Design Review Committee membership and by minute action, either affirm the existing membership or select new members. The term is for 1-year reviewed annually. BACKGROUND: The Design Review Committee reviews the architectural design, signage, building colors, site plans and landscape plans for proposed development projects in Rancho Cucamonga. The Design Review Committee consists of the Planning Director or her designee and two Planning Commissioners. The Planning Commission selects new or affirms the existing Commission representation from amongst themselves each year. Currently, Commissioners Macias and Wimberly are serving on the Design Review Committee and Commissioner Munoz is the First Alternate. There are no current vacancies on the Committee. CB/LS 132— Pg 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 26, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planne(�W) INITIATED BY: Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: SELECTION OF THE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should consider the current Commission representation for the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC). The Commission may select or re -affirm the first and second member and a new alternate. Generally, Commissioners finishing 1-year of a 2-year term remain on the Committee and complete their unfinished term unless other duties or retirement preclude them from doing so. BACKGROUND: The Trails Advisory Committee is comprised of two members of the Park and Recreation Commission, two members of the Planning Commission, and two Members at Large. The Members at Large serve as representatives of the biking and equestrian community. The Committee is facilitated by a staff member designated by the Planning Director. The staff member is a non -voting member. The Trails Advisory Committee assists both the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission by reviewing proposed projects that may impact the existing trail system, its use, future improvements and addressing resident concerns. The TAC reviews and recommends priorities for trail improvement projects and forwards those recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission for consideration which then are forwarded to the City Council as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). TERMS AND MEMBERSHIP: Typically, the Planning Commission reviews the TAC membership in July if a Commission member is nearing the end of a term or has notified the City of an impending retirement. Currently, Chairman Oaxaca just completed 1-year of his 2-year term and Commissioner Fletcher has completed the second year of a 2-year term. Commissioner Wimberly just completed 1-year as First Alternate. CB/LS D3- Pg 1 I - , STAFF REPORT DATE: July 26, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City PlannT INITIATED BY: Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 - IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 611,573 square foot industrial building on a vacant parcel of 26.63 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District on the north side of Arrow Route, about 1,200 feet east of Interstate 15, and about 2,600 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 0229-021-60. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: • Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; and • Approve Design Review DRC2016-00726 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. PROJECT BACKGROUND: On October 28, 2009, the Planning Commission approved Development Review DRC2007-00440 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00664 to construct and operate an operations and maintenance facility for Omnitrans Transit Agency. The project was never built and the Planning Commission's approval of the entitlement expired on October 28, 2014. Omnitrans is currently in the process of selling the property to the applicant, Industrial Property Trust (IPT). PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the north side of Arrow Route about 1,200 feet east of the Interstate 15 Freeway (Exhibit A). It consists of one parcel that is approximately 925 feet (east to west) and approximately 1,270 feet (north to south) with an area of about 1,160,155 square feet (26.63 acres). The frontage along Arrow Route has no street improvements. There are no permanent buildings on the site; it is currently vacant and is a former vineyard. The site is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,177 feet and 1,162 feet, respectively. The land uses on the subject property and the surrounding properties, and their respective General Plan designation and Zoning are as follows: El-Pgt PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant General Industrial General Industrial GI District Regional Related North Commercial Center (Foothill Marketplace) General Commercial Commercial (RRC) District South Steel Manufacturing Facility (CMC) Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial HI District East Chemical Manufacturing Facility (Air General Industrial General Industrial Li uide) strict West Self -Storage Facility (Planet Storage) and General Industrial General Industrial Warehouse Building GI District ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposes to construct a one story warehouse building of 611,573 square feet that will include two (2) office areas with a combined floor area of 20,000 square feet (Exhibits D and E). The front, or primary, elevation of the building will be oriented towards Arrow Route. The office areas and entrances will be at the southeast and southwest corners of the building. No tenants have been specified at this time. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction painted with a palette of six colors (Exhibit F). The primary building materials will be concrete and sand blasted concrete while the secondary materials will be glass panels (glazing), metal accents and wood accents. The majority of the metal, glazing and wood accents are proposed at the office areas. Each fagade also will also have panel reveal lines. Horizontal metal canopies are proposed above the windows on each elevation of the office entrances. All elevations will have a parapet that varies slightly in height to create dimension and visual interest. Additional dimension and visual interest are provided at both office areas by parapet and wall planes that vary significantly. A new public street is proposed along the east side of the property. This new street will be 66 feet wide (including sidewalks, parkways, etc.) and will be aligned south -north between the southeast and northeast corners of the project site. It will extend from Arrow Route and terminate at an existing block wall that is on the property line that separates the project site and Foothill Marketplace. Removal of the wall is at the discretion of the property owner/management of Foothill Marketplace. However, it is anticipated that eventually the existing block wall will be removed and the new public street will connect to the parking lot of Foothill Marketplace to facilitate access and circulation. The loading area, dock doors, and trailer parking stalls will be located on the east and west sides of the project site. These areas will be screened from public view on Arrow Route by the proposed building itself and from public view along the new public street by a wall. Two access points are proposed for the property along Arrow Route and another two are proposed along the new public street. The plotting of the building allows for full vehicle circulation around the building. As a result, any of the driveways can be used to access customer and employee parking at the south and north sides of the building, and the dock El—Pg2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 3 areas on the east and west sides of the building. Some vehicle and trailer parking can only be accessed by driving through one of four security gates. Two employee outdoor eating areas will be located at the southwest and southeast corners of the project site. As permitted by the Development Code, in lieu of a shade structure there will be a shade tree at each of the outdoor eating areas. Landscape coverage is 11.1 %; the minimum requirement is 10% for this Development District. B. Per Section 17.64 of the Development Code the parking requirements for the project are as follows: Type of Use Floor Area Parking Number of Spaces (Square Feet Ratio Required Proposed Building (overall) 611,573 Warehousing 591,573 varies' 168 Office 20,000 1/250 80 Total Required/Total Provided 248/248 ' For warehouse uses, the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; and 1 space per 4,000 square feel for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet. 'The trailer parking requirement is calculated separately from the standard parking requirement and is based on a ratio of one stall per dock door. The, number of trailer parking spaces that is required is 110 spaces and the number that is provided is 110 spaces. C. Floor Area Ratio: Per Chapter 2, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan of the General Plan, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the General Industrial land use category is 60 percent. As the proposed building will have a floor area of 611,573 square feet and the project site has an area of approximately 1,160,155 square feet, the calculated FAR for the project will be approximately 52.7 percent. D. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee (Wimberly, Macias and Smith) on April 18, 2017 (Exhibit H). Prior to the Committee meeting, the applicant made revisions to the proposal in response to Staff's recommendations in their Comments report to the Committee. The Committee accepted the proposal, as revised, and recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission with no further comments. The Committee's conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. E. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed and approved by the Technical Review Committee on April 18, 2017. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommended approval. The Committee's conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. Tribal Consultation - Assembly Bill 52 (AB52): In accordance with AB52, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians were contacted to determine interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. The letters were sent on March 2, 2017 and the tribes were given a E1—Pg3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 4 deadline of April 3, 2017 to respond with a request for consultation if desired. The City was contacted by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (email dated April 28, 2017), requesting more information regarding the project. Staff provided the requested information and followed up with three emails (dated May 10, May 15, and May 22, 2017). Staff received no further response or request for consultation. Communications were not received from the other tribes that were contacted. G. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the applicant submitted an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was prepared by Psomas, the applicant's environmental consultant, and it was peer reviewed by MIG, an environmental consultant that was contracted for the task by the City. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation/traffic, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. Two letters were received in response to the circulated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. One letter was from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the other letter was from the Native American Heritage Commission (Exhibit J). The letters were forwarded to the environmental consultant that prepared the Initial Study. The environmental consultant prepared response comments which were forwarded to the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Native American Heritage Commission. The consultant reviewed and addressed each concern with the conclusion that no further mitigation or analysis was required. The Native American Heritage Commission and the Department of Toxic Substance Control agreed with the environmental consultant's explanation and had no further comments. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. Lastly, the construction of the building and the future tenant of the site will create employment positions and may create a demand for housing. Individuals working on the construction of the building and occupying the finished building will have a positive financial impact on the surrounding restaurant, retail and other commercial businesses. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the project, the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code. The General Plan describes the General Industrial designations as areas where businesses provide many industrial development opportunities and diverse employment opportunities for residents throughout the Inland Empire. More specifically, E1—Pg4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 5 the General Plan Industrial designation permits a wide range of industrial activities. This warehouse building project is consistent with the intent of the General Industrial designation. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular size legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No public response was received. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Aerial Photo Exhibit C - Site Utilization Plan Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Floor Plan Exhibit F - Elevations Exhibit G - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit H - Design Review Committee Action Agenda & Comments Exhibit I - Initial Study (Parts I, II & III) Exhibit J - Letters from the Dept. of Toxic Substance Control and the Native American Heritage Commission and response comments from the Environmental Consultant Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2016-00726 C B: N C/Is E1—Pg5 .asc . � t I t � Foothill Blvd� _ r Victoria Gardens Ln o.Y N "L= 14, EXHIBIT B El-Pg7 s`s o =� �JJ 8 EXHIBIT C E1—Pg 8 O 9 FXHIRIT El—Pg 9 4yp�[6Y9� ` 1L� ■o y�y�jg5§� � Eg ■ � �� !�$ ¢ � � ■ � $ pppg g8g ■ b8b pp a I , ' I ' i ; , N p�p 8 3Q 5 1` gggg gggg 5 i � ®f 0 ® 9 ,r�rF i q-.a•— L I 4 . r—'-.. T Y �' .�—L •—I—•—• •' t I • —' •—r . Q p I I i oY t C c 1 I E I { r. j za I J O lI I m B-01 I Ff iD gFTT A o- I t --------•---'-----_—.., �.---'----'----- _ •-'_— ;I It t gg p 9 5 Z Z't Z 4'g 51 11 N a • • • • a . • a • a • • . • • • • s • • • � • � ,� a p .fir 1 g�g I I 5 oGGG000 GOOOG itf. ep=4 =_ EXHIBIT E El—Pg 10 BIOE_EELEYA_V N 4 FR9HLELLEYATOM{3l _RICE EL€PATIO I BA41 KE E TIOPI ( ) TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION (B� -1 I ;J-� Y,I al).MX) 1s I _FROM ELEVATION.{it _ _ _SIDE ELEVATION �3) _ BACK ELEVATION C2% - _ -SURE ELEVATION' ' J ••• '- PUMP HQLISE ELEYAT� V�•` XETNOIES. RO]H HwN rn L).• ... ..... to till ......zni L� .. ELARGEO OFFICEPLAN�' �f7 1 .l ..1 TR_A H� ENCLIIIIMC PUMP HOUSEtCI ,A) a M£YNJ1E9 . EIkYAIKN '•n aw e v u.n ......0 U . Oenm eErsnsLHmEs Elav noxs 140451HIPIr\•� °^^�� . � oammuPRorrnnmusr +sn.mPmun uo.Nmu us.a... u.. cin.u..�.r em,-r ■ BEimw.xmEs-aAvo Pmjca 1. lt.; ....,,..., •jn L1�. . Arrow Route 28 Acres .uw. xm.Ra ■ anal saKVAfs�REVAmss •'••• ■ tlAZxc LEalA - - 1 ] M 01 rv0 0 ��Im TTA3.2 712, i j75 I I� FXHIRIT F E1-Pg 12 Eal � 1 €ae �sI CS G$ SH J �' � 5P a t•�� a° 3 q 3 $e 3. rat a di� a}F e n H n fps a'ega' E n d + °°• o 0 3 H f ,• F 8 - B ne;s 3 g 33 c-u, Y e i i �i a cc ava.ad�f ��3ig06i 3 I i7 Yii H �i � S � f1 1 i i I! E i §. •. it 3-en e .R iZ vv^rp as t '� d g1 s m {a a� a,Fx v n eoa H O9�i .aL •• _ v s , i y zg Cal jc ! sass �; !I ! s if f a; iq3 -S uda.,n. ` ,�!: N� 'k, 7 ; EXHIBIT G ' -❑it rtrs4 ISi ! 9;! R++T it _ _ I evigf el telgvin I 1 I.. 4iii i� ° A eji% c g. �€ I .`. u SE M� � •• 0 31[10 NONNV ... gN � w H ' E1-Pg 14 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Nikki Cavazos April 18, 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 - IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 611,573 square foot industrial building on 26.63 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District on the north side of Arrow Route and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN 0229-021-60. Design Parameters: The project site is located on the north side of Arrow Route about 1,000 feet east of the Interstate 15 Freeway. It consists of one parcel that is approximately 925 feet (east to west) and approximately 1,270 feet (north to south) with an area of about 1,160,155 square feet (26.63 acres). The frontage along Arrow Route has no street improvements. There are no permanent buildings on the site; it is currently vacant and is a former vineyard. The site is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,177 feet and 1,162 feet, respectively. The property is bound on the west by a parcel that is developed with a self -storage facility (Planet Storage) and another parcel that is developed with a warehouse building. The property is bound on the east by a parcel that is developed with a chemical manufacturing facility (Air Liquide). To the north is a property that consists of several parcels that are developed with a commercial center (Foothill Marketplace) that includes businesses such as Walmart, Living Spaces, Claim Jumper and In-N-Out Burger. To the south, on the south side of Arrow Route, is a parcel developed with a steel manufacturing facility (CMC). The zoning of the property and the properties surrounding the subject property to the west and east is General Industrial (GI) District. The zoning of the properties to the north is Regional Related Commercial (RRC) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District, and the zoning of the properties to the south is Heavy Industrial (HI) District. The proposed project is a one story warehouse building of 611,573 square feet including two (2) office areas with a combined floor area of 20,000 square feet. The front, or primary, elevation of the building will be oriented towards Arrow Route. The office areas and entrances will be at the southeast and southwest corners of the building. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction painted with a palette of six colors. The primary building material will be concrete while the secondary materials will be glass panels (glazing), metal accents and wood accents. The majority of the metal, glazing and wood accents are proposed at the office areas. Each facade also will also have panel reveal lines. Horizontal metal canopies are proposed above the windows on each elevation of the office entrances. All elevations will have a parapet that varies slightly in height to create dimension and visual interest. Additional dimension and visual interest are provided at both office areas by parapet and wall planes that vary significantly. A new public street (identified as "Street A" on the Site Plan) is proposed along the east side of the property. This new street will be 66 feet wide (including sidewalks, parkways, etc.) and will be aligned south -north between the southeast and northeast corners of the project site. It will extend from Arrow Route and terminate at an existing block wall that is on the property line that separates the project site and Foothill Marketplace. Removal of the wall is at the discretion of the property owner/management of Foothill Marketplace. However, it is anticipated that eventually the existing block wall will be removed and the new public street will connect to the parking lot of Foothill Marketplace to facilitate access and circulation. The loading area, dock doors, and trailer parking stalls will be located on the east and west sides of the project site. These areas will be screened from public view on Arrow Route by the proposed building itself and from public view on "Street A" by a wall. EXHIBIT H El—Pg15 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP April 18, 2017 Page 2 Two access points are proposed for the property along Arrow Route and another two are proposed along "Street A". The plotting of the building allows for full vehicle circulation around the building. As a result, any of the driveways can be used to access customer and employee parking at the south and north sides of the building, and the dock areas on the east and west sides of the building. Some vehicle and trailer parking can only be accessed by driving through one of four security gates. There are three vehicle parking areas on the subject property, one on the north side (62 parking spaces), one on the south side (138 parking spaces) and one on the west side of the building (48 parking spaces). The combined required amount of parking stalls is 248 and 248 parking stalls are provided. A trailer parking stall is required for every dock door. There are 110 dock doors proposed and 110 trailer parking stalls provided. Landscape coverage is 10.8%; the minimum requirement is 10% for this Development District. No tenants have been specified at this time. Two employee outdoor eating areas will be located at the northwest and northeast corners of the project site. As permitted by the Development Code, in lieu of a shade structure there will be a shade tree at each of the outdoor eating areas. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. Add an additional primary material such as sand blasting. This material shall be used on all elevations. 2. Add glazing on the south elevation between the office elevations (three areas), similar to the amount proposed on the east elevation. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Change the species of trees that will be shading the employee break/eating area. The landscape plan shows the trees proposed as a "Blue Palo Verde" and that type of tree will not provide a large thick canopy of shade. The Development Code requires a "large shade tree" if a tree is used in lieu of a shade structure. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. All ground mounted equipment and utility boxes, including transformers, back -flow devices, etc., shall be screened by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on center. This equipment shall be painted dark green. 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 office corner of the building. 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) screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone or poured in -place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building. E1—Pg 16 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC. LP April 18, 2017 Page 3 3. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 4. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. 5. Decorative paving shall be provided at all vehicular access points onto the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the parking setback line (25 feet on Arrow Route and 15 feet on "Street A") and have a width equal to the width of the driveway. 6. All doors (roll -up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. 7. Provide durable street furniture in outdoor employee eating area, such as tables, chairs, waste receptacles. 8. All trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standard. The design of the trash enclosures shall incorporate the materials, finish, color, and trim used on the buildings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee accepted the changes the applicant made and forwarded the project to the Planning Commission with no further comments. Staff Planner. Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner Members Present: Commissioner, Rich Macias; Commissioner, Ray Wimberly, Mike Smith, Senior Planner (substituting for Senior Planner, Donald Granger) Additional Staff Present: Donald Granger, Senior Planner, Dominick Perez, Associate Planner El—Pg 17 APRIL 18, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA RAINS Room CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE A. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Ray Wimberly X 7 00 P_U Rich Macias X Candyce Burnett Donald Granger X Alternates: Lou Munoz Rich Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca Additional Staff Present: Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Dominick Perez, Associate Planner. Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS None This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individuals embers of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. Page 1 of 4 El-Pg 18 APRIL 18, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE C1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 - IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 611,573 square foot industrial building on 26.63 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District on the north side of Arrow Route and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN 0229-021-60. The Committee accepted the changes made by the applicant and forwarded project to Planning Commission. C2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19557 - W&W LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS - A request to subdivide a parcel of 42,150 square feet into three (3) parcels in conjunction with the/ development of three (3) single-family residential homes within the Low (L) Residential District located at 9757 Liberty Street - APN: 0201-251-56. Related file: Minor Design Review RC2014-00700. MI DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00700 - W&W LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS - A reques develop three (3)sirgle-family residential homes in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map 1955 n a parcel of 42,150 square feet within the Low Residential (L) District located at 9757 Liberty eet -APN: 0201-251-56. Related file: Tentative Parc�-Map SUBTPM19557. The Comrrrittee b 'fly discussed the project and recommended yojproval with no issues and forwarded project to nning Commission. C3. DESIGN REVIEW MODIF TION DRC2016-00338 - OWEN'S COURT ESTATES, LLC. - A request to modify Design Revi DRC2014-00207 for an approved 6-lot subdivision to revise the plotting and architecture for s (6) single-family residences within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, n Owens Court, located on the west side of East Avenue and south of Banyan Street - APNs: 7-842-01, -02, -03, -04, -05 and -06. Related files: Development Review DRC2014-00207 an, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16578. The Committee briefly discussed thi�l#rojec no recommended approval subject to staffs recommended conditions and forwarded project Planninq Commission. C4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIV PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762 - DR HORTON - A request to subdivide 28.4 acres of land into parcels in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the co truction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two taurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boul and and Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC20=01102, Pre Application Review DRC416-00142, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, ditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Uniform Sign Progr DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exceptio RC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT 032 - DR HORTON - A request for a residential condominium subdivision for 380 residential u its on 28.4 acres of land in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the Page 2 of 4 El-Pg 19 /1rr\IL IVY Lv I 1 - / VV r.M. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE co truction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two rests nt pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest cor r of Day Creek Bouleva and Base Line Road -APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: P eliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre Application Review DRC2016-00142, Ten tive Parcel Map SUBTPM19762 Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Re iew DRC2016-00450, Uniform Sign P� 'ram DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan/Amendment DRC2016- 00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prep ed a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE MENT AND DESIGN REVIEW C2016-00450 - DR HORTON - A request for site plan and a itectural review in the Vic ria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to a construction of a ixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel an t�vo restaurant pa s totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard an Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, re Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative ract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Uniform Sign Progra RC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exce tion RC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environment I impac for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND UNIFORM SIGN P20GRAM DRC2016-00451 - DR HORTON - A request for a Uniform Sign Pfogram in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed b" project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DkC2015-01102, Pre Application Revi w DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT2003 Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Victoria C mu lity Plan Amendment DRC2016-0045?��and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff h prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. The Committee recommended approval subject to the following: Village A: For th 3 story Townhome Rowhome 6n all 5, 6, or 7 plex buildings and elevation schemes, a itional materials and elemen shall be added to the front and rear elevations that are appropn a to the Craftsman-inspi d design. Materials shall include the following as appropriate: board d batten and lap si ng, introducing brick, additional amounts of shingle siding, and windo appropriate to t architectural style. Village D: For al/ plans and architectural styles, additiona materials and lements shall be added that are appropriate to each style to achieve the 360 degree arch)Yecture requirement. For the Craftsman and Shingle styles, materials shall include board and atten siding, shingle siding, brick or rock, lap siding. For the Santa Barbara and Italianat style, materials and features shall include elements and architectural vocabulary that are autt njic to the style and placed on the wall plane appropriately in order to meet the 360 Page 3 of 4 E1-Pg 20 APRIL 18, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE designregttwement. In addition, the following enhancements shall be made: - Plans 1 B. 1 C and ID: Rework the locagoas of the X plaster recess to reflect each style in an authentic manner. - Plans 2A, 28 and 2D. WRh the cephon of the first floor on Plans 2B and 2D, rework the locations of the 3"plaster recess.to re ' t--eaaj�h style in authentic manner. - Plans 3B. 3C and 3D: Rework the locations of the X plaster recess3 f eeflect each style in an authentic manner. All Villages: All garage doors shall be appropriate an-dance the architectural style, and generic door styles shall not be used. Linear parka The pre tad an updated and revised linear park design that was not part of the Committee's plan packet. a Committee found the park layout acceptable. The linear park was designed with the wing features and amenities: sidewalk on two sides, two open turf areas that could be utilu for open play. soccer,- badminton, and volleyball, bench seating, two shaded areas with game les, and two bfce ball courts. D. ADJOURNMENT The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. I, Jennifer Palacios, Office Specialist II with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on day, Thursday, April 6, 2017, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Jennifer Palacios Office Specialist it City of Rancho Cucamonga If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Page 4 of 4 E1-Pg 21 Prin[ Form ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) RANCHO (Please type orpdnt clearly using Ink. Use the tab kay to move from one Ifne to the nert Ifnm) CUCAMONGA Plannrng OeparfineW (909)477.2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City Policies, Ordinances, and Guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. Upon review of the completed Initial Study Part I and the development application, additional information such as, but not limited to, traffic, noise, biological, drainage, and geological reports may be required. The project application will not be deemed complete unless the identified special studies/reports are submitted for review and accepted as complete and adequate. The project application will not be scheduled for Committees' review unless all required reports are submitted and deemed complete for staff to prepare the Initial Study Part II as required by CEQA. In addition to the filing fee, the applicant will be responsible to pay or reimburse the City, its agents, officers, and/or consultants for all costs for the preparation, review, analysis, recommendations, mitigations, etc., of any special studies or reports. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOTBEPROCESSEO. Please note thatitlsthe responsiblWof the applicantio ensurethat the application Is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing Information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: DRC2016-00726 Project Twe: IPT Arrow Route 28 Project Name 8 Address 0f project awner(s): IPT Arrow Route DC, LP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 625, Newport. Beach, California 92660 Name & Address of developer orpmJectsponsor IPT Arrow Route DC, LP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 625, Newport Beach, California 92660 Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT I E1-Pg22 Confect Person &Address: Russell Pierce, RDP Development, Inc. Name & Address of person preparing this Corm (d different from above): BonTerra Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Telephone Number. 714.751.7373 Information indicated by an asterisk (') is not required of non-constmclion CUP's unless otherwise requested by stall. '1) Provide a full scale (6-1/2 r 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheaf(s) which includes the project site, and Indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set ofcolorphotographs that show representative views info the she from the north, south, east, and weal; views Into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the sRe. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): The project site Is located at 12400 Arrow Route in the City of Rancho, Cucamonga, in San Bernardino County. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheaf if necessary): APN 0229-021-60 '5) Gross Site Area (Wsq. IL): 29.22 acres 11,272,945 at '6) Net Site Area (fotaf site size minus area of public streets & proposed 1,160,155 sf (26.63 ac) dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would effect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): The project site has a General Plan and zoning designation of General Industrial (GI). According to the 2010 General Plan, the General Industrial designation permits a wide range of Industrial activities that Include manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. Since the proposed project does not require changes to the existing land use or zoning designations, the project is considered to be consistent with both the Land Use Element of the 2010 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Updated 4I1 2013' Page 2 of 10 E1-Pg 23 6) Include a description of ell permits which will be necessary from the Cf(yofRancho Cucamonga and othergovemmentaf agencies in order to fully implement the project. Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-007227, Sign Permit Notice of Filing DRC2016.00728, and NPDES Construction General Permit from the RWQCB to ensure that construction site drainage velocities are equal to or less than the pre -construction conditions and downstream water quality is not worsened. 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as if exists before the project including information on topography, sail stability, plants and animals, mature frees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, cite all sources of information (i.e.. geological andforhydrologlcstudies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The project site is currently vacant and consists of overgrown/fallow agricultural land. The site Is planted with rows of low-lying trees and shrubs and is surrounded by a chain -link fence. The project site is located in an area characterized by relatively flat terrain with a maximum elevation of 1,183 feet in the northem region of the site to a minimum elevation of 1,162 feet in the southern region of the site. The runoff from the existing site flows from the north to the south in a sheet flaw condition and flows to Arrow Route. The runoff then appears to spill over the crown and is collected by a catch basin on the south side of Arrow Route. Surface drainage In the area runs toward Day Creek. Soils on and adjacent to the project site consist of Tujunga gravelly, loamy sand. Fill and disturbed top soil was encountered at a depth of one to three feet. Groundwater is estimated at a depth of over 400 feet bgs. The project site consists of an abandoned vineyard, semi -natural herbaceous stand, and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) stand. No undeveloped, natural open space is located in the vicinity. The closest open space occurs within a powerline easement approximately 0.3 mile west of the project site. No drainage features or isolated wetland features were observed within the project site that would be considered jurisdictional by the USAGE, RWQCB, or CDFW. No sensitive plant communities were identified as having the potential to occur on the project site, and the project site is not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. Rochester Avenue, Arrow Route, and Etiwanda Avenue are all classified as Class II (on -road; striped) bike routes. Only Etiwanda Avenue is currently striped with Class II bike lanes. The project site is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, with bus service along Foothill Boulevard via Route 66. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Updated 411112013 Page 3 or 10 El—Pg 24 10) Describe the known cultural and/orhisforical aspects of the site. Cife all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): Foothill Boulevard (Route 66) is identified as a Historic Transportation Route north of the project site. Additionally, there are four designated historic sites or Points of Historical Interest less than 1/2-mile north of of the project site, including the AT&SF Railroad, a historical canal, and two historic structures/buildings. With the exception of a sewer line, no resources were identified on the site during the field survey. 11) Describe any noise sources and theirlevels that now effect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: The primary sources of noise at the project site are traffic an 1-15 and Arrow Route, and noise related to industrial uses. The proposed building would be within the Conditionally Acceptable range for industrial land uses and compatible with the applicable noise standards. 12) Describe the proposed pro/act in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use that will result from the proposed project. Indicate 1f there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each, phase, and the anticipated completion of each Increment. Attach additlonal sheet(s) if necessary: The proposed project involves the construction and operation of up to 611,573 sf of high -cube warehouse/ distribution center uses on the approximate 26.63-acre project site. One industrial cross -dock warehouse building with approximately 40 feet in clear height, or usable height, and 110 dock doors is proposed. The building would consist of 15,000 sf of office space (including 5,000 sf of mezzanine area) and 591,573 st of warehouse area and a floor -to -area ratio of 0.53. It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would occur in a single phase and is expected to begin in January 2017 and be completed by January 2016. Construction activities Include site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including Information an plants and animals and any cultural, historical, orscenlc aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), Intensityof/and use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yawl, etc.): The parcel to the north is developed with a commercial/retail shopping center. The parcel to the south is developed with Industrial uses, including a commercial metals company. The parcel to the east is developed with industrial uses, including a distribution warehouse and storage facility. The parcel to the west is developed with industrial uses, including an air -liquid products facility. Updated 4/1 MO13 Page 4 of 10 E1—Pg 25 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? Development of the project would alter the visual appearance of the project site; however, the project would comply with the development standards for industrial districts as identified in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Additionally, the proposed project would he similar in appearance to existing industrial uses located south of the project site. 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, Inducting source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on -site uses? What methods ofsoundproofing are proposed? The anticipated construction noise levels at nearby commercial and industrial uses would not exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA. During operation, the project would generate noise consistent with general Industrial land uses, including heating ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, truck leading and unloading, and internal vehicular circulation and would fall within the Class B standards of 80 d9 an the site. •16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: A tree of heaven stand is located near the center of the project site. These trees may be protected by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cade. A tree survey is required prior to constriction activities to determine it the trees found within the project site qualify for protection under the Coda. Additionally, there are gum trees planted adjacent to the eastern and northern boundaries of the project site. However, these would not be impacted by the proposed project. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) Into which the site drains: The primary receiving waters for runoff from the project site are Cucamonga Creek Reach 1, Mill Creek (Prado Area), Chino Creek Reach 1A, and Santa Ana River Reaches 1 through 3. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the,Cucamonga Valley Water District at (909) 987.2591. a. Residential (gaUday) b. CammerclaUlnd. (gal/day/ac) 2020 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Peak use (gal/Day) Peek use (gallmin/ac) 1.168 ❑ Septic Tank Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. It discharge to a sanitary sewage system Is proposed Indicate expected dailysewagegeneration: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at (909) 987-2591. a. Residential (gaUday) b. Commefdal4ndustrial (gaUday/ac) 2020 Updated V1112013 Page s of to E1—Pg 26 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units:_ Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent(parmonth) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of schoolchildren who will be ra';Iding within the project., Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment 8: a. Elementary: b. Junlar High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major lunction(s) of commercial, Industrial or institutional uses: The project Site is designated for General Industrial uses, which permit a wide range of industrial activities that Include manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of up to 611, 573 sf of high -cube warehouse/distribution center uses on the project site including 15,000 sf ot.office space. Updated 411112013 Page 6 of 10 El —log 27 26) Total floor area orcommemial, industrial, orinstitutional uses by type: Total floor area of 0.53 for Industrial. 27) Indicate hours of operation: 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM 28) Number of employees: Total419 Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakdown ofanticipatedjob classifications, including wage and salaryrenges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 5% Management; 10% IT; 10% Clerical; 25% Warehouse Management; 50% Warehouse/General Wages: $150K Management; $85K IT & Clerical; $60K Warehouse/General 30) Estimation of the numberof workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: 280 workers (or 85%) will he hired •31) For commercial and industrial uses only, Indicate the source, type, and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): See attached. ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and food control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine thefrabilitytoprovide adequate service to the proposed project? Ifso, please indicate theirresponse. Not at this time. Updated 4/112013 Page 7 of 10 El-Pg 28 33) In the known history of this properly, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples or hazardous and(or toxic materials Include, but are not limited to PCBs,' radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage ofanyof the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, it known. Information was not available as to the potential historical usage of pesticides, fertilizers, or insecticides on the project site. However, these residual concentrations, if present, are not typically at concentrations that would require cleanup by a regulatory agency or pose a significant human health risk to commercial or industrial site users. 34) Will the proposedpmJectinvolve the temporary oriong-term use,storage, or discharge of hazardous and/ortoxfcmaterials, Including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. There is the potential for routine use, storage, or transport of other hazardous materials at the proposed facility; however, the precise materials are not known as the tenants of the proposed warehouse/distribution center are not yet defined. 35) The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fee. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning CommissiorvPlanning Director hearing: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and In the attached exhibits present the data and Information required for adequate evaluation oflhls project to the best ofmyablf1ty, that the facts, statements, and Information presenledare true andcorrect tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional Information maybe required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date: 1 O / (Z l (CA Signature Updated 4/1112013 Page a or 10 El-Pg 29 ATTACHMENT "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED WATER USE AND SEWER FLOWS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (Data Provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District February 2003) Water Usage Single -Family Multi -Family Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Office Professional Institutional/Government Industrial Park Large General Industrial Heavy Industrial (distribution) Sewer Flows Single -Family Multi -Family General Commercial Office Professional Industrial Park Large General Industrial Heavy Industrial (distribution) 705 gallons per EDU per day 256 gallons per EDU per day 1000 gal/day/unit (tenant) 4082 gal/daylunit (tenant) 973 gal/day/unit (tenant) 6412 gal/day/unit (tenant) 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant) 2020 gal/day/unit (tenant) 1863 gal/day/unit (tenant) 270 gallons per EDU per day 190 gallons per EDU per day 1900 gal/day/acre 1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government 3000 gal/day/acre, 2020 gal/day/acre 1863 gal/day/acre Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District Engineering & Water Resources Departments, Urban Water Management Plan 2000 Updated 4111/2013 Page 9 of 10 E1—Pg 30 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees' Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald; Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)987-8942 Etiwanda 6061 East Avenue, P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909)988.8511 Updated 4/11/2013 Page 10 of 10 E1-Pg 31 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration IPT Arrow Route DC Project Leao Agenry City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Deportn'ent 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730 Prepared by Psorr os 3 Flutton Centre Drive Suite 200 Santo Ano. Col:fonnio 92707 June 2017 El-Pg 32 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration IPT Arrow Route DC Project Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Prepared by: Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707 June 2017 E1—Pg 33 tole] TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pacle Section1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study.....................................................................1-1 1.2 Summary of Findings..............................................................................1-1 1.3 Project review process ........................ .................................................... 1-2 1.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference..................................................1-3 Section2.0 Project Description..........................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Site Location and Setting............................................................2-1 2.2 Project Description..................................................................................2-2 2.2.1 Proposed Building .................................................... ................... 2-2 2.2.2 Circulation and Parking...............................................................2-2 2.2.3 Landscaping, Lighting, and Walls/Fences................... I .............. 2-3 2.2.4 Proposed Utility Infrastructure.....................................................2-4 2.2.5 Construction Activities.................................................................2-6 2.3 Discretionary and Nondiscretionary Actions...........................................2-6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...................................................2-7 DETERMINATION.....................................................................................................................2-7 Section3.0 Initial Study.......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Environmental Checklist Form................................................................3-1 1. Aesthetics...............................................................................................3-2 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.......................................................3-6 3. Air Quality...............................................................................................3-8 4. Biological Resources............................................................................3-22 5. Cultural Resources...............................................................................3-26 6. Geology and Soils..............................................................:...:..............3-30 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................3-34 8. Hazards/Hazardous Materials..............................................................3-44 9. Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................3-48 10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................3-53 11. Mineral Resources................................................................................3-55 12. Noise....................................................................................................3-56 13. Population and Housing........................................................................3-63 14. Public Services.....................................................................................3-65 15. Recreation............................................................................................3-68 16. Transportation/Traffic............................................................................3-69 17. Tribal Cultural Resources.....................................................................3-87 R wrejeattviIPRoIm 0011rubal Stu doIRT Arrow Roue Revised Indtul study-06061T.ducx Initial Study El —Pg 34 IPTArrow 18. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................3-88 19. Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................. ........................ 3-92 Section 4.0 List of Preparers...............................................................................................4-1 City of Rancho Cucamonga....................................................................4-1 Consultants.............................................................................................4-1 Huitt-Zollars, Inc. (Preliminary Hydrology Report)..................................4-1 NorCal Engineering (Geotechnical EngineeringInvestigation)...............4-1 RPS Iris Environmental (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) .......4-1 Section 5.0 References........................................................................................................5-1 TABLES Table Page 1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards..................................................3-9 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ..........................3-10 3 Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds........................................................................3-14 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds per day).........................3-15 5 Localized Significance Summary Construction............................................................3-16 6 Summary of Operational Emissions.............................................................................3-17 7 Summary of Localized Operational Emissions.............................................................3-17 8 Top Greenhouse Gas Producing Countries and the European Union .........................3-35 9 Estimated Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................3-37 10 Vibration Levels During Construction...........................................................................3-59 11 Intersection Analysis Locations....................................................................................3-71 12 Intersection Analysis for Existing (2016) Conditions....................................................3-73 13 Project Trip Generation Summary (In Passenger Car Equivalent)...............................3-75 14 Project Trip Generation Summary (In Actual Vehicles)................................................3-76 15 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions...........................................3-78 16 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions With Project Improvements..............................................................................................................3-78 17 Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Without Project Traffic Volumes (In Passenger CarEquivalent).............................................................................:..............................3-80 18 Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Conditions With Project Improvements..................................................................................................3-81 19 Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions............................................3-82 20 Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions With Improvements ............ 3-83 21 Estimated Solid Waste Generation..............................................................................3-91 F:T,,,WPAQMO 10 I4 HIM IPT Wr. Fame F--d InM.l SW60511,d— Initial Study E1—Pg 35 EXHIBITS Exhibit Follows Paue 1 Project Location.............................................................................................................2-1 2 Conceptual Site Plan......................................................................................................2-2 3 Conceptual Floor Plan....................................................................................................2-2 4a—c Conceptual Building Elevations......................................................................................2-2 5 Conceptual Landscape Plan..........................................................................................2-4 6 Site Photometric Plan.....................................................................................................2-4 7 Conceptual Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan.............................................................2-4 8 Proposed Sewer Relocation...........................................................................................2-5 9 Conceptual BMP Plan....................................................................................................2-5 10 Sections.........................................................................................................................2-6 11a—b Site Photographs .................................................. .......................................................... 3-3 12 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map..........................................................3-6 13 Vegetation Map............................................................................................................3-22 14 Noise Compatibility Matrix............................................................................................3-57 15 Traffic Study Area Intersection Map.............................................................................3-71 16 Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls.....................................3-71 17 Existing (2016) Traffic Volumes (In PCE)....................................................................3-72 18 Existing (2016) Summary of LOS.................................................................................3-72 19 Project (Passenger Car) Trip Distribution....................................................................3-76 20 Project (Truck) Trip Distribution...................................................................................3-76 21 Existing Plus Project Summary of LOS........................................................................3-77 22 Cumulative Development Location Map......................................................................3-79 23 Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Without Project Summary of LOS ...........................3-79 24 Opening Year Cumulative (2018) With Project Summary of LOS................................3-79 25 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Summary of LOS...............................................3-81 26 Horizon Year (2040) With Project Summary of LOS....................................................3-81 27 Truck Access................................................................................................................3-84 APPENDICES Appendix A Air Quality Impact Analysis B Health Risk Assessment C Biological Resources Analysis D Cultural Resources Assessment E Geotechnical Investigation Report F Greenhouse Gas Analysis G Phase I Environmental Site Assessment H Preliminary Hydrology Report I Noise Analysis J Traffic Impact Analysis K CVWD Water and Sewer Service Letter R:A?r,ecio,KRVIAR0101000nitia1 SW EyMi Artow Route Revised Intel SWEy069617.dacx Initial Study E1—Pg 36 iPT Arrow Route DC Project This page intentionally left blank R'P.,-.IIARtlIM0101001n.MI SNE'IPT M—Route Revd Initial SWCyA6061 ].d-. Initial Study El—Pg 37 IPT Arrow Route DC Project SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to (1) describe the proposed Industrial Property Trust (IPT) Arrow Route DC project (hereinafter referred to as the "project"), which is located in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California and (2) provide an evaluation of potential environmental effects associated with the project's construction and use. This IS has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (California Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.). Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) is the lead agency for the project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, as the lead agency, has the authority for project approval and certification of the accompanying environmental documentation. 1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This IS is based on an Environmental Checklist Form (Form), as suggested in Section 15063(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Form is found in Section 3.1 of this Initial Study. It contains a series of questions about the proposed project for each of the listed environmental topics. The Form is used to evaluate whether or not there are any potentially significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project. The explanation for each answer is included in Section 3.1. The Form is used to review the potential environmental effects of the proposed project for each of the following areas: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Mandatory Findings of Significance As identified through the analysis presented in this IS, the proposed project would have no impacts or less than significant impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts on the following topics unless the recommended mitigation measures R}ProjectsWR131PR0 I DI 0011niXal 6NdyltPT Mow Route Revised Initial Study-060617.doa 1-1 El—Pg 38 1PT Arrow Route DC Project described herein are incorporated into the project: biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation and traffic. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project because, after incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts would be eliminated or reduced to a level considered less than significant. 1.3 PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS This IS and proposed MND have been submitted to potentially affected agencies and individuals. A notice of availability of the IS and Notice of Intent to adopt the proposed MND for review and comment has been posted on the project site. The environmental documentation is also available for review on the City's website: https://www.cityofrc.us/cityha11/planning/current—Projects/. In addition, hard copies of the IS are available for public review at the following location Public Information and Services Counter City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (909) 477-2700 Hours: Monday —Thursday: 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM A 30-day public review period has been established forthe IS and the proposed MND. The review period has been established in accordance with Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines. During review of the IS and MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the document's adequacy in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts and the ways in which the potentially significant effects of the project area can be avoided or mitigated. Comments on the IS and the analysis contained herein may be sent to: Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (909) 477-2750, ext. 4311 mailto:Nikki.Cavazos@cityofrc.us Following receipt and evaluation of comments from agencies, organizations, and/or individuals, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will determine whether any substantial new environmental issues have been raised. If so, further documentation may be required. If not, the City may adopt the MND. R)Plojecb`IAWOIAR010107Ini0al swot iPr Arrow Route Rev ised Inmal Sludy-000617.0oca E1—Pg 39 IPT Arrow Route DC Project 1.4 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following documents are applicable to development of the project site and are hereby incorporated by reference, along with the referenced data and information. • Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2000061027) certified May 2010 • Rancho Cucamonga General Plan adopted May 19, 2010 (Housing chapter adopted November 3, 2010) These documents and other documents referenced in this IS are available for review at the City at the address provided above. R.IProjeNVARUWi01010 OR1.1 SWdMPi M. R.NW RobedlWid SUYy 0617.d.c. 1-3 Introduction E1—Pg 40 raIN This page intentionally left blank R.Pmjob,IARQIAR01010PInitial SWdi Aunt, Route Revised lmdaI SNdy-0fip617,di 1-4 E1—Pg 41 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND SETTING The approximate 26.63-acre project site is located at 12400 Arrow Route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The project site is owned by Omnitrans; the project applicant, IPT Arrow Route DC, LP (IIIPT) will be acquiring the project site from Omnitrans. The site is generally located north of Arrow Route and west of Juneberry Drive. These roadways provide local access to the project site. Interstate Regional access is provided via (I)-15, which provides regional access, is located approximately 66 feet west of the project site. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional location and local vicinity of the project site. As shown in the aerial photograph provided in Exhibit 1, the project site is currently undeveloped and consists of overgrown/fallow agricultural land. The site is planted with rows of low-lying trees and shrubs and is surrounded by a chain -link fence. The project site is completely surrounded by developed property and is approximately 60 feet from Interstate 15. The parcel to the north is developed with a commercial/retail shopping center occupied by Guitar Center, Claim Jumper, and several vacant buildings. The parcels to the south, east, and west are developed with industrial uses that include CMC Rebar, Aire Liquide America Corporation, and stockpiling activities associated with the Gerdau rebar manufacturing facility, respectively. The project site is located in an area characterized by relatively flat terrain with a maximum elevation of 1,183 feet in the northern region of the site to a minimum elevation of 1,162 feet in the southern region of the site. Runoff from the project site flows from north to the south in a sheet flow condition to Arrow Route. The runoff then appears to spill over the crown and is collected by a catch basin on the south side of Arrow Route. Areawide surface drainage continues south toward Day Creek. Soils on and adjacent to the project site consist of Tujunga gravelly, loamy sand. Fill and disturbed top soil, or the upper outermost layer of soil, was encountered at a depth of one to three feet. Groundwater is estimated at a depth of over 400 feet below ground surface (bgs) (NorCal 2016a). As further discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the project site consists of an abandoned vineyard, semi -natural herbaceous stand, and tree of heaven (A/lanthus altissima) stand. No undeveloped, natural open space is located on the project site or in the vicinity. The closest open space occurs within the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission line easement approximately 0.3 mile west of the project site. No drainage features, wetlands, or sensitive plant communities have been identified on the project site. In the vicinity of the project site, Rochester Avenue exists as a four- to five -lane divided roadway; Arrow Route is a two- to three -lane divided roadway; and Etiwanda Avenue is a four -lane divided roadway. Rochester Avenue, Arrow Route, and Etiwanda Avenue, which are all classified as Major Arterial roadways, are all classified as Class II (on -road; striped) bike routes; however, Etiwanda Avenue is the only street of the three that is currently striped with Class II bike lanes. Bus service in the project vicinity is provided by the public transit agency Omnitrans along Foothill Boulevard via Route 66. The project site is designated General Industrial by the General Plan and is zoned General Industrial (GI). According to the 2010 General Plan, the General Industrial designation permits a wide range of industrial activities that include manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. R.APmJeMAR131A010IQNInU GWMPTA RUU. Rchadlnftl 5Ndy660617.don 2-1 Introduction E1—Pg 42 Li RON A[m ro ictorlalbard6ns Ln-M7� I Awlkl� go— yo�a v Und. 41 -427 rky: ]OW Of IPT Arrow Route DC Pro%ect 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.2.1 PROPOSED BUILDING The proposed IPT Arrow Route DC project would involve construction and operation of a maximum 611,573 square -foot (sf) high -cube warehouse/distribution center on the approximate 26.63-acre project site. Exhibits 2 and 3 present the Conceptual Site Plan and Conceptual Floor Plan for the proposed project. The proposed building would operate as an industrial cross -dock warehouse' with approximately 36 feet in clear height, or usable height for storage of a product, and 110 dock doors. The building is anticipated to include 10,000 sf of office space and a 5,000 sf mezzanine area, with the remaining 591,573 sf for warehousing. Building intensity is characterized by a floor -to -area ratio of 0.53 (611,573 sf _ 26.63 acres). Exhibits 4a through 4c provide the building elevations for the proposed new building. As shown, the new building would be a maximum 46-foot tall structure of tilt -up concrete construction, with a mezzanine area near the building entrance. The concrete panels would be painted with three primary color tones and two accent tones. The building corners and upper segments of the building fagade would include exterior glazing. Additionally, canopies would be located at the building corners at varying heights. Accent trellis features composed of reclaimed wood would also be constructed at each of the building corners. 2.2.2 CIRCULATION AND PARKING Vehicular Circulation Access to the site would be provided via two proposed driveways along Arrow Route. A private street with two additional driveways would also be constructed along the eastern site boundary. The following is a description of site access improvements proposed as part of the project: • Driveway 1 at Arrow Route. Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: Not applicable (N/A) o Southbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane o Eastbound approach: One left -turn lane (storage to be accommodated within existing two-way left -turn lane) and one through lane o Westbound approach: One through lane and one shared through -right turn lane • Driveway 2 at Arrow Route. Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: N/A o Southbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane o Eastbound approach: One left -turn lane (storage to be accommodated within existing two-way left -turn lane) and one through lane. o Westbound approach: One through lane and one shared through -right turn lane. A cross -dock warehouse is one where products are distributed with little or no handling or storage time. Additionally, they can be separated midway between the opposite docks in addition to being divided along aisles. R7mlecbVPRQMG101004tu6al Study%IPT Mow Route Revleed Intliet Study 060617.docx E1—Pg 44 Vicinity Map Tabulation pErvreARrA - hsl 1.160.155 s.(. agtgNGAPEA alNat Llfbo. Is WO [l:. plKe AlaaMexx I, s,MO sl: Wvenwfe A-591.STJ zI TOTAL LAST] s.I. E s$]% A MORA ® A.R.. gHGPFOgR QIKe BOSWs Us.1. VAne:'W.=s.l.e ISINDW z.J. 1.:1. @RI.J, mezO,oW.1, 1.3. v1.OW a.ILe ao.Wac.L ma aEw. ue slats . iO]AL E10 slab PUfOPA,'IF PROVICEO i IDl T slate Sl . l 19't 10'1 241111., WTAL TOTAL 310 slJi TPPILFA s.,I ,, Rclk. 111t,5b1 Tr.LO PA1 1 Ito slats I Rxooe PFAN CED TR'.I,, T.aerp *'" qoa K.. M'I,- ROORARFA MI]O FAR- 60 RT EONWORINANLE PORI Zomp- tl IGmerrl FMs01a'1 .AM.. @ILO... can -IS' E9CN 'PUNnp5e0Mk15'net llomAmvry Rwle. 'S'mn [de yalJ eeWxk '0']vv seW SX La�CAIE -35'I. Puulel LA IASCAPERF9gRL Racevape III.., LAAMCPPEPRIVIC® nsl. Ill]91 if. ibsemEp lo.ex IANpSCAPEINPARNAGAREAS qYY 10%ol palnp v/ve 51. PavNen ]11D, .11 011 s.l. Conceptual Site Plan IPTAmw Route DC Project •-4-• too So O loo ® PEei `�- WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 17-I ll- U I I IiI I I_I1 1-77 1 l l l l l rr rT:_r rl-y__ —i= r _..—r—=r—`--r— - • =--r-' r= r=—r—'-r=—t=—r= '- >I- AREAL--��-� I I I Z611 5��IS'1 _I�_1_ I I I I I I �"•�_Z_C_'� I {I I I �1 FAr-t IM/SLNf MI M-R('IXx l 1 I I I It-1-'1-1-rt_I-i_� J _ _1— _ 1—_I I W Source HPANIG Exhibit 2 1 m 411 I I i I i I I I _ I— I —H_ I —LJ_ I —H-4-—H4—H— I I I � I I —r—r--I--—N—�--T� _r-r--r-r--j--r-�--1 �BUILDING 573AREA �-��- I I- L 1 u_I_L1_ _H__�_H_+_H_ 7T—TT_T—TI- I I i I 1 I I I -�—a —�—�— I-71 so�m. ernmw Conceptual Floor Plan Exhibit 3 IPTArrcw Route DC Project �� - �irwm •+...m•wnv.m�a�ma:aovs� r.mra„ mwmn o-o m v A V uwe. wnwr Conceptual Building Elevations Exhibit 4a IPTAmw Route DC Pmjed m_ I U to A 00 Oc1.•'.s. ^��r:... 0 -•_ p.�.. e..e... �.. _�_ ._...sr. r..a:•'v.i.s 'x..�'.i:��:'.� .R..e_sY._..oe o�.®r�_�a`sr'a— '-Wa.m •:r.ar�•-.a.�.. ....... Nremw_. per-. __. _e _ �o.� .__sex'•-.- way p...._ pm,. �°w.�.:te_.� r. �,.•: er :ems 0s...., ..._.• .". ❑ ET ❑ ® I' 0 0 0 0 0 0 p•ae.� ��` `CuS_'�d•^`�.�__.._. •bZ:T ,ar JY.�: �. •�e:.r •'r.TvaY•.u^. o_...m._�. ❑ �' ""'�"'• S wm HPAM16 Conceptual Building Elevations Exhibit 4b IPTAuow Route DC Project m_ I ¢mV-EJSw•Tmxn4 Ixox�{{•vrV?",03-Um[_¢UvT0� o•M_u[v1nOx„`J TnncxsAwosvx�sry�non� �APNLBfl'AMM _ ME "ATMJ� VMRUKV .•11P7� xmCVA hw- n U j Gig>= UF� 2 1� TP16N EXCL�6yilg /.l _..� _...z _.W..n[E a Vyux xPU4V 4UvTUx (l _ vUMP_NPVVV-0 arxox•.xm�mav Oi ae...c...uvm mm� n•As[osrnsE,euy� (��If� C'� G--- ®......., m cn m m m o �,.imaam. Conce tual Building Elevations Exhibit 4c IPTAmow Roele DC Projecl Ifwlerv.w.uwruulolPlWu:yu.u�l.m. nl Alulu,Int � I IPT Arrow Route DC Project • Private Driveway/Driveway 3. Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: One shared left -through lane o Southbound approach: One shared through -right turn lane o Eastbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane o Westbound approach: N/A • Private Driveway/Driveway 4. Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: One shared left -through lane o Southbound approach: One shared through -right turn lane to Eastbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane o Westbound approach: N/A • Juneberry Drive at Arrow Route. Align the private driveway with the existing Juneberry Drive at Arrow Route and modify the existing traffic signal phasing on the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate permissive left turns. Also maintain the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane and shared through -right turn lane o Southbound approach: Keep existing shared through -left turn lane and defacto right turn o Eastbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane, through lane, and defacto right turn. Add a second through lane. o Westbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane, through lane, and defacto right turn. Add a second through lane. Non -Vehicular Circulation As part of the project, a sidewalk would be constructed along Arrow Route. Two bike racks would be provided next to the building alongside the parking lot. Parking The proposed project would provide up to 248 auto parking stalls and 110 truck trailer stalls in compliance with City parking requirements. 2.2.3 LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND WALLS/FENCES Landscaping The proposed landscaping for the project has been designed in accordance with City implementation of the California Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881) to include plants with low water usage; a high -efficiency drip irrigation system, with minimal or no overhead spray sprinklers; and an evapotranspiration/weather-based smart controller using daily updated weather data. No turf is proposed. RARmlecblogtJ 01OI WrtlaI SWdo] PT Move Rome Revised Init].16Wdy-66661i.doct 2-3 Introduction E1—Pg 50 The conceptual landscape plan for the project is provided in Exhibit 5. As much as 124,794 sf or 10.8 percent of the site would be landscaped with various trees, shrubs, accents, and groundcover. As shown, landscaped areas would be provided along the perimeter of the project site (behind the sidewalk on Arrow Route), along the building perimeter, in parking areas, and along the private drive. Tree species would include blue palo verde (Cercidium "desert museum'), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), chitalpa (Chitalpa tashkentensis), camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora), maidenhair (Ginko biloba "fairmount'), toyon (1-leteromeles arbutifolia), Afghan pine (Pinus eldarica), and Brisbane box (Tristania conferta). Shrubs, accents, and groundcover would also be provided in the landscaped areas. Lighting The proposed project would include installation of lighting within the parking areas and loading docks, along walkways, and on the building. A uniform site lighting design would be provided throughout the pedestrian and automobile parking areas as well as in the secured truck yard areas. The lighting design would consist of both building wall -mounted light fixtures as well as pole -mounted lights, all designed to provide the required light level to provide adequate security pursuant to Section 17.58.050 of the City's Municipal Code without encroaching beyond the site boundary. Specifically, lighting associated with the proposed building would have a minimum 1.0 foot-candle of illumination. Lighting within the proposed parking light would provide a minimum of 1.0 foot-candle and a maximum of 4.0 foot-candle of illumination. The site photometric plan for the project is provided in Exhibit 6. Walls/Fences As shown on Exhibit 2, a new retaining wall would be constructed along the site's northern perimeter. Additionally, an eight -foot -high metal fence would be constructed along the southern, eastern, and western site boundaries. 2.2.4 PROPOSED UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE Municipal and private utility services necessary to serve the project are currently available within or adjacent to the project site. On -site utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project —including water, sanitary sewer, drainage, and runoff treatment would be installed with the proposed development and would connect to the existing utilities. The final sizing and design of on -site facilities would occur during final project design during application for building permits. Following is a description of existing and proposed utility infrastructure. Water Lines As illustrated on Exhibit 7, the proposed project would include installation of a proposed ten -inch water main along the eastern edge of the project site that would provide domestic water service to the project. This proposed water main would connect to an existing ten -inch water line at the northeast corner of the project site and an off -site water line located southeast of the project site. An additional connection for irrigation water is proposed atthis location. A 12-inch firewater lateral would connect to the proposed 10-inch water main in the northeastern corner of the property and an additional 12-inch fire water lateral would connect to an off -site water line to the south. Sewer Lines As illustrated on Exhibit 8, the proposed project would involve the relocation of an existing eight - inch sewer main that currently runs through the project site in a north -south direction. Existing utilities within the sewer easement would be relocated to the western edge of the project site and the relocated easement would be dedicated to CVWD. As shown, the proposed eight -inch sewer R TroieannARuiARmmooareffint swaptctAuo. Route Revised Initial smareeoeii.eo., 2-4 Introduction El—Pg 51 m I l0 N N s — neu-m'. zam.. Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit 5 IPTAvow Route DC Project I 00 30 0 w I Feel nnuammnv av4a wnc+w�om�m,c.mu..uaes i..m.wn., _zommu pJ Site Photometric Plan IPTARaw Route DC Piojeel IM ® Fe,11 NEW .PUBLIC STREET -_ �------_.-------.._.._------ _"— II j -• . - - :-» f �� a I , _: �� � It I� -1 -p .i •:^ ^..-..1L: ..�..1'L rt n H �',� r' I� I BUILDING AREA 611,573 S.F. I o ---------- ------- --- - - --- - -- ------ L ,f "Of--- .. "t. }f^ ,r I � I li :.. _... ...._ .. y...._: .. .. .._ _..—...- Exhibit 6 iu, N,x::,,, I "_1 1 A rr t I� i 89 If� �§ e i ' • jG h I� 1 l /I l�jr P¢®�sM r�cs,tnvlyc11iI�x.::_,. e:•9 �� �^$ iq 'r .1 og^"' g , � .. m�i � _ I r , �`a �� �" � � .i � �� I .rG ^�.^. .I• r iH . ` i , i ,. F L• � . 1 /� LEGEND a�, � i 8 a d,xn.� 3J :r.. j4f � � it � ,e,• ' ���r, � / �.^ 'r ' v [ '{ ! , .�'/�,�Yy,Y I n :/ i4 {a rwwus,m [ _.i. i `^ ••` •• -_ .-.1^. uX LGmur vnnum S. Hu4.lWllam 2016 Conceptual Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan Exhibit 7 IPT A.w Route DCProject -�-• ao ao n en ® FEET " IrdiWl4tBLEly R4Ye}.nllU19Wp1Y101IG,gibYSVa] G,+enpWn-MI6101Ypdf main would follow the property line and connect back to the existing eight -inch sewer to the north and south of the project site. Storm Drainage and Water Quality Features There is an existing 54-inch storm drain designated for the 60-acre retail -commercial center (Foothill Market Place) north of the project site that runs north to south through the project site. As part of the project, the storm drain would be relocated to the west side of the proposed building within a proposed 20-foot storm drain easement, and would collect runoff from the west side of the project site. Existing utilities would be relocated to the western edge of the project site. The relocated easement would be dedicated to CVWD and the storm drain easement would remain private with Foothill Marketplace as the beneficiary. The proposed 54-inch storm drain would connect to the existing storm drain to the north of the project site and would join the existing 12-inch by 12-inch reinforced concrete box located southwest of the site. The new site drainage design would be separated into west and east areas as shown on Exhibit 9, Conceptual BMP Plan. West Area. As shown on Exhibit 9, storm water runoff from the west area of the site would be directed to seven proposed catch basins (CBs). These catch basins (CB No. 1 through CB No. 7) are proposed to be constructed along the northern, western, and southern edges of the project site. Storm water would then be conveyed via a system of proposed on -site storm drain pipes to three underground infiltration systems that are proposed to be constructed beneath the parking areas of the proposed project. The overflow from the underground infiltration systems would be discharged southerly to the existing 12-inch by 12-inch reinforced concrete box (RCB) in Arrow Route through the relocated 54-inch storm drain (Outlet 1). East Area. The runoff on the east side of the project site would be directed to four proposed catch basins (CB No. 8 through CB No. 11). Two of the proposed catch basins (CB No. 11 and CB No. 8) are proposed to be constructed along the southern and eastern edges of the project site, respectively. CB No. 9 and CB No. 10 are proposed to be constructed within the roadway right-of-way of the proposed private street and near the intersection with Arrow Route. Runoff entering CB No. 8 would then be conveyed via proposed storm drain pipes to an underground infiltration system to be constructed beneath the proposed parking area along the eastern edge of the project site. Storm water would then be conveyed to the proposed infiltration basin, to be located in the southeastern corner of the project site. Storm water collected via CB No. 9 and No. 10 would flow southerly via the proposed street gutter and would discharge into the proposed infiltration basin. The overflow from the infiltration basin and underground infiltration system would be discharged southerly to the existing 12-inch by 12-inch RCB in Arrow Route through a proposed 36-inch riser in the southeast corner of the project site (Outlet 2). The runoff from half of north Arrow Route would drain to CB No. 11 and discharge to the existing 12-inch by 12-inch RCB in Arrow Route. Collectively, the proposed catch basin and on -site storm drain facilities would be sized to accommodate maximum 100-year (Qtoo) flow levels from the project site and the new public street, totaling 87.22 cubic feet per second (cfs). The four proposed underground infiltration systems would be designed to detain 33.32 cfs of storm water flow and the remaining 53.90 cfs of storm water flow would discharge to the existing RCB in Arrow Route. R:W,oiectokWRU61Rma ICON mlual sma%IPT nRow Rowe Rce[aed mniat shady-oaaev.eoc, 2-5 Introduction E1—Pg 55 .._JL_. ....... i 1 w V I LA jl/M1 IItV I -' f :•. 4 I. I . -\ 'IM•; •3 � _ pl .. _I. X Y f � �p�ry�ipA¶}¶� �p ��TR� aa���}In\ . �LLB�II YY�Jli/LY IID W LWllYILLV V'.. . I - I I, I I LD _ - - -- -- - NEW STREET i Proposed Sewer Relocation /PTA/mwRo1Re DGPmj@d �• w 46 a 66 ® fFET w 6wro HuaSdnR y116 Exhibit 8] Iw�RS01RIRNR W�RmWM4V1aLa1@arMRF.Wr61�Pwrf�+�M1lwsn dNNOf6pR m I V Plan IPTArmw Route DC Pmjecf •�• eo 4® Feel 'DEMO rwnsso n..a uvw nn uruu x¢vr xe..w ixx.n uxMmx J IPT Arrow Route DC Project The proposed project would include the following structural Best Management Practices (BMPs): (1) contech underground infiltration system (36-inch and 72-inch); (2) installation of a curb and opening catch basin bioclean filter; and installation of a grated catch basin bioclean filter. 2.2.6 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would occur in a single phase and is expected to begin in November 2017 and be completed by November 2018. Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. Anticipated construction equipment would include dozers, tractors, excavators, scrapers, a crane, forklifts, a welder, an air compressor, a generator, pavers, rollers, and other paving equipment. Earthwork quantities include 109,188 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 106,591 cy of fill, resulting in approximately 2,597 cy of export. The site sections presented in on Exhibit 10 depict the proposed grade at various locations on the project site. 2.3 DISCRETIONARY AND NONDISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The following approvals and permits are required from the City of Rancho Cucamonga to implement the proposed project: • Design Review DRC2016-00726 • Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Other nondiscretionary actions anticipated to be taken by the City at the staff level as part of the proposed project include the following: • Sign Permit Notice of Filing DRC2016-00728 • Review and approval of all off -site infrastructure plans, including street and utility improvements pursuant to the conditions of approval • Review of all on -site plans, including grading and on -site utilities • Approval of a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to mitigate post - construction runoff flows Approvals and permits that may be required by other agencies include: • A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the RWQCB to ensure that construction site drainage velocities are equal to or less than the pre - construction conditions and downstream water quality is not worsened • Approval of water and sewer improvement plans by the Cucamonga Valley Water District • Approval of conceptual plans showing the movement of pipes and existing easement by Metropolitan Water District RAPu,ue1sVAR101AR0101001nda1 StudyVPT Maw Route Revised Initial SNtly-060617.doaa El—Pg 58 m I "O t0 to LO SECTION AT ARRP/ R9eTE {B SECD9R.ALPR9PCSEe-PUBLIC STREET C 0) sow= rnawu Sections _ Exhibit 10 IPTArrow Route DC Project mmllym a munu ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: ❑ AestheticNisual ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. C Sigiotwe of Lead �Agenc epresentative Date k11 LL ` -ayr. zns C ngc� Printed name Agehdyv RAPr01..h11aRZ"01010011hiW SWdVPT Nmw R.W. Ravmad 1n b.1 SWtlp060617.d-t 2-7 Introduction E1—Pg 60 IPT Avow Route DC Project This page intentionally left blank R)Plojecb\IAM31AR01010ONIhal SludylIPT Arrow Route Revised Initial Study-050517.doc. Introduction E1—Pg 61 SECTION 3.0 INITIAL STUDY 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This section contains the Environmental Checklist Form (Form) for the proposed project. The Form is marked with findings as to the environmental effects of the project. An "X" in column 1 requires preparation of additional environmental analysis in the form of an EIR. This analysis has been undertaken, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, to provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the factual basis for determining, based on the information available, the form of environmental documentation the project warrants. The basis for each of the findings listed in the attached Form is explained in the Explanation of Checklist Responses following the checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title IPT Arrow Route DC Project Lead Agency Name and City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive Address Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Contact Person and Nikki Cavazos Phone Number (909) 477-2750, ext. 4311 Project Location The project site is located at 12400 Arrow Route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County. Project Sponsor's Name IPT Arrow Route DC, LP, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 625, Newport Beach, and Address California 92660 General Plan General Industrial (GI) Zoning General Industrial (GI) Description of Project The proposed project involves the construction and operation of up to 611,573 square feet (sf) of high -cube warehouse/distribution center uses on the approximate 26.63-acre project site, including 15,000 sf for office uses. One industrial cross -dock warehouse building approximately 46 feet in height with 110 dock doors is proposed. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose ministerial approval is required Boundary General Plan/Zoning Existing Land Use Designation Commercial/Retail Northern General Commercial Shopping Center and Interstate 15 Eastern General Industrial Air -Liquid Products Distribution Warehouse Western General Industrial and Planet Storage Center Arrow Route and Southern Heavy Industrial Commercial Metal Products • Cucamonga Valley Water District. Approval of water and sewer improvement plans. • Metropolitan Water District. Approval of conceptual plans showing the movement of pipes and existing easement R.Tr.jeoMW31PA010100WW SbdgPT M. RWu Revised hN.l 6NEy160617.do E1—Pg 62 IPT Arrow Route DC Prolect Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No 1. AESTHETICS Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ El® El of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which El❑ ® El adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Explanation of Checklist Answers 1a. Less Than Significant Impact. As identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report(EIR), the City sits at the southern base of the San Gabriel Mountains at the eastern end of the range. The San Bernardino Mountains are just east of the San Gabriel Mountains, divided by the Cajon Pass. Views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are visible from the project site. The proposed building would reach a maximum height of 46 feet while the maximum allowed height for the project site is up to 75 feet. While views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains would be reduced through construction of a 46-foot tall industrial building, impacted views would be from surrounding industrial land uses located south of the project site, which would not be considered a significant impact. According to Figure LU-6 of the Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Element of the 2010 General Plan, there are no designated view corridors in the project vicinity; however, Arrow Route (from Grove Avenue to East Avenue) is designated as "Special Boulevard". The project site is located within this segment. According to the 2010 General Plan, a Special Boulevard is characterized by landscaping, hardscaping, and meandering sidewalks. It should be noted, however, that all major arterials are identified as Special Boulevards within the City and the designation relates to street -level design and does not relate to the presence or visibility of scenic vistas. Project development would include installation of landscaping and a meandering sidewalk along Arrow Highway, which would support the Special Boulevard designation. The City recognizes other scenic resources, including remaining stands of eucalyptus windrows, scattered vineyards and orchards, and natural vegetation in flood -control channels and utility corridors; however, the project site is currently vacant and consists of overgrown/fallow agricultural land and none of these resources occur on the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 1 b. No Impact. As stated previously, there are no scenic resources within or adjacent to the project site. In addition, there are no State -designated scenic highways within the vicinity of the project site. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, which is developed and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), none of the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are designated as scenic highways (Caltrans 2011). Furthermore, the project site is not visible from any designated scenic highways. Additionally, no historic buildings are known to exist on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact scenic resources within a designated R.iP,aleeb'IAR!]IAROIO I OOIInit al ZWdf laT know Route Revised Initial SNtly46O617.dav El—Pg 63 IPT Arrow Route DC Prolect State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway and no mitigation is required. 1c. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 2.1, Project Site Location and Setting, of this IS, the project site is currently vacant and consists of overgrown/fallow agricultural land. Surrounding land uses include a commercial/retail shopping center to the north; industrial uses, including a commercial metals company and air -liquid products facility to the south and west; and distribution/warehouse uses and a storage facility to the east. Existing views of the project site are shown from various locations surrounding the project site (refer to Exhibits 11a—b). These photographs were taken from vantage points adjacent to the project site, and they are representative of views from surrounding land uses. Descriptions of these photographs can be found below. View 1—View from Arrow Route, Looking North. View 1 represents the existing view looking north toward the project site from Arrow Route. As shown, the project site is surrounded by a chain -link fence and low-lying vegetation covers the site. Trash and debris can be seen along the perimeter of the site. To the north is a commercial/retail shopping center and to the northwest is 1-15, as shown in the photograph. This photograph represents views from motorists traveling along Arrow Route. View 2—View from the Southeastern Corner of the Site, Looking West. View 2 represents the existing view of the project site from the southeastern corner of the site looking west. The existing chain -link fence surrounding the project site and on - site low-lying vegetation within the project site are visible from this viewpoint. To the west are several industrial buildings, including a distribution warehouse and storage facility. Arrow Route is visible along the southern boundary of the site and is lined with power poles and mature trees. View 3—View from the Southwestern Corner of the Site, Looking East. View 3 represents the existing view of the project site from the southwestern corner of the site looking east. The existing chain -link fence surrounding the project site and on - site low-lying vegetation within the project site are visible from this viewpoint. Trash and debris can be seen along the perimeter of the site. To the east are industrial uses, including an air -liquid products company facility, which is partially screened by mature trees, as shown in the photograph. To the south are additional industrial uses, including a commercial metals company located along Arrow Route. View 4—View from Commercial/Retail Shopping Center, Looking South. View 4 represents the existing view looking south toward the project site from the commercial/retail shopping center to the north. As shown, the project site is currently planted with rows of low-lying trees and shrubs. To the south of Arrow Route are industrial uses, including a commercial metals company, as shown in the photograph. A storage facility is visible to the southwest. Background views include existing power lines and distant mountain views. During construction activities, there would be temporary views of construction activities, equipment, and stockpiles of building materials and debris on the project site. This visual change is considered less than significant because of its temporary nature and is typical of construction sites in an urban environment. No mitigation is required for temporary construction -related visual changes. As described previously, the proposed project involves the construction and operation of up to 611,573 sf of high -cube warehouse/distribution center uses on the approximate R:WrojecleMRUIPR010100W i0el SW*gPT Mow Route Rev Ise d Initial Study-0606P.don E1—Pg 64 View 1 - View from Arrow Route Highway, looking north. r F t%Q3S/il� Arro�.v Rte View 2 - View from the southeastern comer fo the site, looking west. law Pena; Source Aenais Express 2008 Site Photographs Exhibit 1 1 a IPT Arrow Route DC Project I ", I »s,e:. + ;.,.­ ",'s:- : _..,:_ , rov sa mmsuum I 1 E1—Pg 65 View 3 - View from the southwestern corner fo the site, looking east. Mug) oC> View 4 - View from commercial/retail shopping center, looking south. 1� Arrow Rto Aerol S Me Ae"s Express 20 Site Photographs Exhibit 11 b IPT Arrow Route DC Project E1—Pg 66 IPT Arrow Route DC Project 26.63-acre project site. One industrial building approximately 46 feet in height with 110 dock doors is proposed. A new retaining wall would be constructed along the site's northern perimeter and an eight -foot -high metal fence would be constructed along the southern, eastern, and western site boundaries. The concrete panels would be painted with three primary color tones and two accent tones to accentuate the building corners and to separate the overall building elevations into smaller elevation components. The building corners would have exterior glazing, which would also be used throughout the building elevation at the upper segments of the facade. Additionally, canopies would be located at the building corners at varying heights to enhance the corners, while accentuating the human scale at the main building entries. Accent trellis features composed of reclaimed wood would also be constructed at each of the building corners. Landscaping is also proposed along the exterior of the facility's perimeter. Development of the project would alter the existing visual appearance of the project site; however, the project would comply with the development standards for industrial districts as identified in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Additionally, the proposed project would be similar in appearance to existing industrial uses located south of the project site. As a result, impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 1d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area that is subject to nighttime lighting from surrounding commercial and industrial uses and street lighting along Arrow Route. As discussed further in the Noise section of this IS, construction activities would comply with all applicable provisions in Section 17.66.050 (Noise Standards) of the City's Municipal Code, which prohibits construction activity between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday and allows construction between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. While the hours of construction may be limited, lighting would likely be used within the construction areas (notably the construction staging areas) to provide security for construction equipment and construction materials. This type of temporary security lighting is often unshielded and may shine onto adjacent properties and roadways. The project would include installation of lighting within the parking areas and loading docks, along walkways, and on the building. All proposed lighting would be shielded and/or directed downward to minimize light spillover to adjacent land uses. Although construction and operation of the proposed project would introduce new and more intensive development to the project area, the project is located in an area that is already subject to nighttime lighting from off -site uses (existing buildings, parking lots, and street lights). Due to the urban nature of the project area and surrounding areas, "sky glow", which is the illumination of the night sky from urban uses, already occurs. Due to the nature and function of the surrounding commercial and industrial uses, neither the lighting associated with the construction nor operation of the proposed project would impact nighttime views or create a nuisance to surrounding property owners. Although there would be an increase in the amount of lighting throughout the project site compared to the existing condition, the effect would be consistent with the type and extent of nighttime lighting in place at surrounding land uses. Additionally, proposed lighting would comply with all requirements set forth in Section 17.58.050 of the City's Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, shielding, level of illumination, signs, maximum height of freestanding outdoor light fixtures, energy -efficient fixtures, and accent lighting. Therefore, operational lighting impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. R\P,ajooin AR0AR01010GVn lial 61udyAPTAnow Route Revised Initial Study-06061I.doa $-4 E1—Pg 67 Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and can be a nuisance for pedestrians and other viewers. Non -reflective building materials would be used as exterior building materials and would not result in potential glare impacts within the project area or surrounding areas. Therefore, impacts related to glare would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. R.TrolecWAR19AR010100Vnitial Stu dyMPT Mmw Route Revioed ln&at SluEV4)60617.Lun 3-5 Initial Study El—Pg 68 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Less Than Project 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Potentially Significant Less Than Impact Significant With Significant No Adequately I Addressed Impact RESOURCES g p Impact Mitigation Impact in Previous Incorporated EIR Would the Proiect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a El ❑ ❑ ® El Williamson Act contract? c) 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 El El ❑ Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 61104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land El El ® ❑ to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ❑ ❑ El El Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Explanation of Checklist Answers 2a and 2e.Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous EIR. According to Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, of the General Plan EIR, pockets of agricultural land exist in the City in the form of vineyards and orchards. Of the total 208.76 acres of farmland in the City, approximately 156.84 acres is designated as Unique Farmland under the Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Based on review of the 2014 Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP 2014), the majority of the project site (approximately 23 acres) is designated as Unique Farmland (refer to Exhibit 12, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Plan Map). A small portion (approximately five acres) of the site along Arrow Route and surrounding areas are designated as Urban and Built -Up Land. The General Plan Land Use Plan does not include an agricultural designation, and agricultural uses were not designated or identified for preservation under the 2010 General Plan. According to Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, of the 2010 General Plan EIR, vineyards and orchards designated as Unique Farmland, including the project site, have been designated for urban development under various land use designations such as GI. According to Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, of the 2010 General Plan EIR, the eventual development of vineyards and orchards, including the project site, with urban land uses would lead to the conversion of farmland to other uses. Despite this long-term expectation, agricultural uses are allowed as an interim use by the City's Development Code; therefore, vineyards and orchards are expected to remain until a:w,aie��nueuianam1001WVd SWeVr My Romp Ra011d imnai swd,0.0.17.d— 3-6 Initial Study El—Pg 69 Victoria Gardens Ln Foothill Blvd Day Creek Blvd Arrow File 0 Project Site Farmland Types Unique Farmland Grazing Land Urban and Built -Up Land Other Land o` z 3 w Data Source Slate of Caliomta Depanment of Conservauom Dmvon of Lana Resource Pratacuon: Farmland Mappng & Monitonng Program (FMM P) 2014 Aerial Source Aerials Express 2oO9 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map Exhibit 12 IPT Arrow Route DC Project w�lN a 1,000 Soo 0 1.000 eol ta...+o-++-lo+e LEwla V+reyCb�W0.VWame�oNGr.yn¢+uSE+fa Fnm�Ma ]a+em+aym E 1—Pg 70 IPT Arrow Route DC Project individual property owners decide to develop these lands, which is consistent with the previous use of the project site. Consistent with the findings of the 2010 General Plan EIR, the project site is characteristic of a small operation that does not support any larger -scale agricultural uses and, when combined with other small agricultural areas in the City, represents less than one percent of the total Important Farmland in the County; the conversion of the project site to urban land uses would not have a major impact on the County's crop value. Despite this finding, Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, of the 2010 General Plan EIR found that development such as the proposed project, which would be consistent with the 2010 General Plan Land Use Plan, would result in the conversion of these farmland areas to nonagricultural uses, thus creating a significant impact. As identified in Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, of the 2010 General Plan EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures to address this impact; therefore, development of the proposed project would be consistent with the Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, of the 2010 General Plan EIR finding that buildout of the 2010 General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the conversion of farmland. Because this impact was identified in the 2010 General Plan EIR and because the proposed projectwould be consistent with the Land Use Plan that was evaluated in the 2010 General Plan EIR, the project would not create an additional impact related to the conversion of farmland. This impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City as part of the approval of the Final EIR. The project site does not include any lands that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the loss or conversion of forest land to a non -forest use. 2b. No Impact. The project site's General Plan and zoning designation is GI, which permits a wide range of industrial activities that include manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. The 2010 General Plan, Chapter 2: Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources, does not envision future use of the project site as agricultural lands. Because the project site and surrounding areas are not zoned for agricultural uses, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses. Also, according to Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, of the 2010 General Plan EIR, the project site is not covered under a Williamson Act Contract; therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with any Williamson Act Contract. No impacts related to this issue would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation is required. 2c and 2d.No Impact. As identified in Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, of the 2010 General Plan EIR, there are no existing forest lands, nor is there zoning for forest lands or timberland in the City, including the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing forest zoning, cause rezoning of forest land, or result in the loss or conversion of forest lands to non -forest uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue would occur and no mitigation is required. R lamlectdIARl3FRo1Otodvndi swdi amw Route Revised Initial smdr.dcdcn.mn. 3-7 Initial Study E1—Pg 71 3. AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflictwith or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air El El Elquality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially El El ® ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ ❑ Z ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ El ® Elconcentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number El El ® ❑ of people? Unless otherwise noted, the following section is summarized from the Arrow Route 28 Acre Development, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga technical report, prepared by Urban Crossroads. This technical report can be found in Appendix A of this IS/MND. Existing Conditions As detailed in Appendix A, the project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The air quality technical report, included as Appendix A, provides additional details related to the SoCAB, the regulatory setting, the regional climate, wind patterns, and existing air quality. Existing air quality is measured at established South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards. Criteria pollutants, discussed in detail in Appendix A, are pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health -based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels, or standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect for each pollutant regulated under these standards, including ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM 10), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead, are shown in Table 1. The determination of whether a region's air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the State and federal standards presented in Table 1, as further described in the technical report included in Appendix A. A region's air quality is considered to be in attainment by the State if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for Os, CO, S02, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive three-year period; and the federal standards (other than Oa, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year. The Oa standard is attained when the fourth highest eight -hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard KPFGJeCft11 ZMO 1016oVnWal StuoyVPT Mow Route RoisedlnNal SWdy-666617.daux 3-8 E1—Pg 72 Study IPT Arrow Route DC Project is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. TABLE 1 CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS California .Federal Standards Primary' , :'Secondary". Pollutant Averaging Time Standards 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 pg/m3) — — 03` 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 s 0.070 ppm (137 pg/m) Same as Primary pg/m3) 24 Hour 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 Same as Primary PM10 AAM 20 pg/m3 — Same as Primary 24 Hour — 35 pg/m3 Same as Primary PM2.5 AAM 12 pg/m3 12.0 pg/m3 15.0 pg/m3 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) — CO 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) — 8 Hour 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) — — (Lake Tahoe) AAM 0.030 ppm (57 pg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 pg/m3) Same as Primary NO2 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 pg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 pg/m3) — 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 pg/m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain — areas) S02 3 Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1,300 pg/m3) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 pg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 pg/m3) — 30-Day Avg. 1.5 pg/m3 — — Lead Calendar Quarter — 1.5 pg/m3 Rolling 3-Month Avg. — 0.15 pg/m3 Same as Primary Extinction coefficient Visibility of 0.23 per km — Reducing 8 Hour visibility i 10 miles Particles ( 0.07 per km —>_30 miles for Lake Tahoe) No Federal Standards ) ' Sulfates 24 Hour 25 pg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 3 0.03 ppm (42 pg/m) Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 pg/m3) 03: ozone, ppm: parts per million, pg/m': micrograms per cubic meter, —: No Standard; PM10: respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean, PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less. CO: carbon monoxide, mg/m': milligrams per cubic meter, NO2: nitrogen dioxide, S02: sulfur dioxide, km: kilometer. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. ° National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. Note: More detailed information on the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov). Source: CARB 2016. R.!Prclect9IAR\3?AR°IOI°41In1°al SWeVIPT Mow RoWe Reviaee Initial SNdy 0606 V.docx Initial Study E1—Pg 73 IPT Arrow Route DC Project The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 30 monitoring stations throughout the SoCAB. Relative to the project site, the nearest applicable long-term air quality monitoring site for PM10 and PM2.5 is the Southwest San Bernardino Valley monitoring station, and the nearest applicable long-term air quality monitoring site for 03, CO, and NO2 is the South Coast Air Quality Management District Central San Bernardino Valley 1 monitoring station. The most recent three years of data available is shown in Table 2-3 of the technical report included in Appendix A, which identifies the number of days ambient air quality standards were exceeded for the study area, which is considered to be representative of the local air quality at the project site. In 2015, the federal and State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) were exceeded on one or more days for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 at most monitoring locations. No areas of the SoCAB exceeded federal or State standards for NO2, S02, CO, sulfates, or lead. See Table 2 for attainment designations for the SoCAB. TABLE 2 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Criteria Pollutant ,State Deslgnation ` " 1, ; < Federal'Designation", Ozone —1 Hour Standard Nonattainment No Standard Ozone - 8 Hour Standard Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Attainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment PM10: respirable particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5: fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016a. As discussed previously in Section 2.1, Project Site Location and Setting, of this IS, the project site is currently vacant; there are currently no air quality emissions generated from the project site. The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining a project's potential to cause an individual and cumulatively significant impact. Surrounding uses include industrial uses and 1-16, located approximately 65 feet west of the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor is the residential community located approximately 2,149 feet northwest of the project site. Regulatory Requirements RR AQ-1 The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications with implementation of Rule 403 (4) (Fugitive Dust): • All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph) per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The Contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered at least three times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur a:wai=�i•�iw+��iu+molao�miusi StudyUPT k,.o aom< aaaeed mnia swdy666617.d.ce 3-10 Initial Study El —Pg 74 IPT Arrow Route DC Project at least three times a day, preferably in the mid -morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The Contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 mph or less. RR AQ-2 The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications with implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113: • Only "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds" paints (no more than 100 gram/liter of volatile organic compounds (VOCj) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. RR AQ-3 Plans, specifications, and contract documents shall note that a sign shall be posted on site stating that construction workers shall not idle diesel engines in excess of five minutes. Explanation of Checklist Answers 3a. No Impact. Air Quality Management Planning The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square -mile area consisting of the four -county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the Basin. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The Final 2012 AQMP was adopted by the AQMD Governing Board on December 7, 2012 (SCAQMD 2012). The 2012 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. Similar to the 2007 AQMP, the 2012 AQMP was based on assumptions provided by both CARB and SCAG in the latest available EMFAC model for the most recent motor vehicle and demographics information, respectively. The air quality levels projected in the 2012 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the 2012 AQMP has assumed that development associated with general plans, specific plans, residential projects, and wastewater facilities will be constructed in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in its 2012 RTP. The 2012 AQMP also has assumed that such development projects will implement strategies to reduce emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of development. a.wrojacloIARWARDioioaneiral SWdyIRTA,row Roma aamsaa Initial smayueosn.eoc. 3-71 Initial Study E1—Pg 75 In March 2017, the AQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as, explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair -share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (SCAQMD 2016). Similarto the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016 RTP/SCS and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The Project's consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2016 AQMP is discussed below. Criteria for determining consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). These indicators are discussed below: • Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if localized significance thresholds (LSTs) were exceeded. The project would not exceed the applicable LST thresholds for construction activity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion. As discussed in detail in Response 3b, below, the project would not exceed the applicable localized significance thresholds (LSTs) and regional significance thresholds for construction activity or project operation. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project buildout phase. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the time frames required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by Cities in the district are provided to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which develops regional growth forecasts that are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in the 2010 General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments but, rather, are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site's land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. The City's current land use designation for the project site is GI, which allows for a wide variety of manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. The project site's current zoning designation is GI, which allows for a wide variety of light and medium industrial activity, such as manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, wholesale, heavy commercial, and office uses. RAP,olec4VgRgIAR01010011ni0al SWdy11PT NewRi Revised Ininal Study0606RAoax 3-12 El—Pg 76 The Project proposes to construct a 611,573 square foot warehouse building, which is consistent with the assumptions in the City General Plan and is therefore consistent with the AQMP. Additionally, employment generation estimated for the proposed project (416 employees) represents approximately 1.4 percent of the total employment (29,220 employees) to be generated by General Industrial areas in the City. It is anticipated that these new warehouse positions would be filled by workers who would already reside in the local area. Operation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial permanent population increase within the City as compared to the population projection of 204,300 persons by the year 2040 (SCAG 2016). The proposed project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2010 General Plan and is therefore consistent with the AQMP. Additionally, as discussed in detail in Response 3b, below, the proposed development would not exceed regional or local daily emissions thresholds and would thus have a less than significant impact. Therefore, the project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. In summary, the project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. The project's proposed land use designation would not increase the development intensities as reflected in the 2010 General Plan. As such, the project would not have the potential to conflict with the AQMP. Thus, there are no impacts and no mitigation is required. 3b. Less Than Significant Impact. Land uses such as the project affect air quality through construction -source and operational -source emissions. The Project's air quality impact analysis utilizes California Emissions Estimator ModelTM (CaIEEModTM) v2013.2.2 to estimate emissions. The purpose of this model is to estimate construction -source and operational -source criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxides [NOx], VOC, PM10, PM2.5, sulfur oxides [SOx], and CO) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources and quantify applicable reductions achieved from mitigation measures. Accordingly, the latest version of CaIEEMod has been used for this project to determine construction and operational air quality emissions. Output from the model runs for both construction and operational activity are provided in the air quality technical report included in Appendix A. The SCAQMD has developed regional and localized significance thresholds for regulated pollutants, as summarized in Table 3. The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (2015) indicate that any projects in the SoCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually. and cumulatively significant air quality impact. RAPrOjecL11AR'31 AR610100tIndal Study' IPT Arrow Route Revised Inllal Study-060617.don El—Pg 77 TABLE 3 MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS Pollutant: `Coiistiucflon :',' Regional Thresholds NOx 100 Ibs/day 55 Ibs/day VOC 75 Ibs/day 55 Ibs/day PM10 150lbs/day 150lbs/day PM2.5 55 Ibs/day 55 Ibs/day Sox 150lbs/day 150lbs/day CO 550lbs/day 550lbs/day Lead 3 Ibs/day 3 Ibs/day Localized Thresholds NOx 144 Ibs/day (site preparation) 270 Ibs/day 203 Ibs/day (grading) CO 1,048 Ibs/day (site preparation) 2,1931bs/day 1,552lbs/day (grading) PM10 220 Ibs/day (site preparation) 78 Ibs/day 214 Ibs/day (grading) PM2.5 146 Ibs/day (site preparation) 41 Ibs/day 157 Ibs/day (grading) NOx: nitrogen oxides; Ibs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compounds; PM10: respirable particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; Sox: sulfur oxides; CO: carbon monoxide. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016a. Regional Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the project, detailed in Section 2.2.5, Construction Activities, of this IS, will result in emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction -related emissions are expected from the following construction activities: site preparation; grading; building construction; architectural coating; paving; and construction workers commuting. Construction is expected to commence in November 20172 and last through November 2018. The construction schedule used in the analysis represents a "worst -case" analysis scenario; should construction occur any time after the respective dates, emission factors for construction would decrease as time passes due to emission regulations becoming more stringent. The duration of construction activity was estimated based on a 2018 opening year. A detailed summary of construction equipment, shown in Appendix A, was based on CalEEMod model defaults. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per State CEQA Guidelines. Dust is typically a major concern during rough grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions". Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation). Fugitive dust emissions were calculated using the CaIEEMod Z When the air quality analysis was completed, January 2017 was the expected start date as referenced in the air quality report (Appendix A). RAP,t,JnWARwARo101GOIWIaI St.J,Vr avow Rom<Rt,.i:.d mwm sNd,D5DOn.tlna. 3-14 Initial Study E1—Pg 78 IPTArrow Route DC Project model. It is assumed the project earthwork will be balanced (will not require import/export of soil). The project site is currently vacant. Therefore, no demolition is required. Construction emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the project site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the project site), were estimated for the proposed project. Construction emissions associated with connection to off -site utility and infrastructure improvements may occur, however, these are not expected to exceed the emissions identified for project -related construction activities. The proposed project would comply with applicable SCAQMD Rules, identified as Regulatory Requirements (RRs) AQ-1 through AQ-3; therefore, appropriate air pollutant reductions have been made. The estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized in Table 4. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix A. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from project construction would not exceed the applicable thresholds established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. TABLE 4 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) VOC NOx co sox PM'10 PM2.5 Maximum daily emissions in 2017 47.32 69.69 61.93 0.12 21.02 12.52 Maximum daily emissions in 2018 2.07 17.23 15.33 0.02 1.11 0.91 SCAQMD Daily Thresholds (Table 3) 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No VOC: volatile organic compound(s); NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: inhalable particulate matter will a diameter of 10 microns or less; P142.5: f ne particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016a. Localized Construction Impacts The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as LSTs. The SCAQMD adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects. For the proposed project, the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST analysis is the Southwest San Bernardino County monitoring station (SRA 33). LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look -up tables for projects less than or equal to five acres in size. Since the total acreage disturbed is less than five acres per day for the site preparation and grading phase (refer to Table 3-6 of the air quality report included in Appendix A), SCAQMD's screening look -up tables were utilized in determining impacts. a.WmjecW1AAQ"G1010NInidal smdygPr k, Rowe aem,ed In "I swdy.oeoan..c 3-15 Initial Study El—Pg 79 Table 5 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the project site. As shown, emissions during construction activity would not exceed SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant and no mitigation is required. TABLE 5 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION On -Site Site 'FreparationEmissions ;. - Emissions'(pounds perday) NOx CO_,�.y = P.M16n` ^,, PM2:5,':' Maximum Daily Emissions 51.75 39.40 9.80 6.41 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 144 1,048 220 146 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No • On -Site Grading Emissions .;Emissions (pounds perday)+ ` NOx -• CO PM10 .PM2.5 ` Maximum Daily Emissions 69.59 46.81 6.70 4.45 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 203 1,552 214 157 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016a. Long -Term Operational Impacts Operational activities associated with the proposed project would result in emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Detailed descriptions of the types of source emissions can be found in Appendix A. Operational -source emissions are summarized in Table 6. As indicated, the project would not exceed the applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. R:1Pmjec%11ARQ1AR01010M1ni5a1 SWEyVT Arrow Route Revised lnidal SM,060617.dsc 3.16 E1—Pg 80 TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Operational Activities -Summer Scenario Emissions (pounds -per day) VOC, NOx do SOX PM7o PM2.6 Area Source 18.62 1.19E-03 0.13 1.00E-05 4.60E-04 4.60E-04 Energy Source 0.03 0.30 0.25 1.78E-03 0.02 0.35 Mobile (Trucks) 2.84 41.30 29.94 0.14 4.83 1.81 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 1.79 2.44 35.69 0.12 10.45 2.81 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 23.28 44.04 66.01 0.26 15.30 4.97 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Operational Activities -Winter Scenario Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 17.56 0.00 0.13 1.00E-05 4.60E-04 4.60E-04 Energy Source 0.03 0.30 0.25 1.78E-03 0.02 0.02 Mobile (Trucks) 2.93 42.94 33.02 0.14 4.83 1.81 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 1.64 2.59 29.78 0.1 10.45 2.81 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 22.16 45.83 63.18 0.24 15.30 4.64 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; Sox: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter less than 10 microns In diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016a, Localized Operational Impacts Generally, the maximum acreage would be the Project's building square footage, which is approximately 611,573 square feet, or 14.15 acres. However, for the purposes of this analysis, and as a conservative measure, the SCAQMD look -up tables of 5-acres are used to determine localized significance thresholds for operational activity. Table 7 shows the calculated emissions for the Project's operational activities compared with the applicable LSTs. As shown in Table 7, Project operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs. TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Operational Activities Emissions' (pounds per day) NOx Cd ' PM10 PM2.5 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 2.58 3.52 0.78 0.25 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 270 2,193 78 41 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016a. 3c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and a nonattainment area for PM10, PM2.5, and lead. This analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction R:l ruectgAAR\TARO 10100Inu&I SNtly4Pr Arrow Route Ravin ad Inient Stud,,060617.doew initial E1-Pg 81 emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project -related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project -specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. Criterion 1 — Regional Analysis Construction Impacts Project construction -source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances for any criteria pollutant. As such, project construction -source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis. Operational Impacts Project operational -source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances for any criteria pollutant. As such, project operational -source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis. Criterion 2 — List Approach A list approach is used, in accordance with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states the following: The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: 1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. The SCAQMD has recognized that there is typically insufficient information to quantitatively evaluate the cumulative contributions of multiple projects because each project applicant has no control over nearby projects. The cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As shown on Table 3-12 of Appendix I, the cumulative project list includes known and foreseeable projects that are anticipated to contribute emissions to the air basin in the vicinity of the project. Cumulative projects could contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance because the Basin is currently nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. As previously noted, since the Project results in a project -specific impact for emissions of VOCs and NOx, cumulative impacts are determined to be significant and unavoidable. As shown in detail in Response 3b, project construction -source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances for any criteria pollutant. As such, project construction - source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis. Project operational -source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances for any criteria pollutant. As such, project operational -source emissions RAProjecteWMAR01010011nital Study\IPi Arrow Route Revised Ini4al Study-O60617Aocs El—Pg 82 would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 3d. Less Than Significant Impact. This section discusses CO hotspots, criteria pollutants from on -site construction, and toxic air contaminants. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots An adverse CO concentration, known as a "hotspot", would occur if an exceedance of the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SoCAB was designated as nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SoCAB is now designated as attainment. Also, CO concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SoCAB, a CO hotspot analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. According to the 2003 hot spot analysis, the highest CO -generating intersection within the hotspot analysis, the 8-hour CO concentration at the Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway intersection was measured at 9.3 ppm; however, only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection, the remaining 8.6 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared (SCAQMD 2003). Therefore, it was concluded that traffic volumes and congestion did not represent a hotspot. In contrast, the ambient 8-hour CO concentration within the project study area is estimated to be between 1.4 ppm and 1.6 ppm. Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed project were double or triple the 2003 traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway intersection and accounting for the ongoing improvements in ambient air quality, the project would not be capable of a CO hotspot at any study area intersections. Additionally, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour —or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix —in order to generate a significant CO impact. At buildout of the project, the highest average daily trips on a segment of road would be 29,700 daily trips on Rochester Avenue, north of Arrow Route, which is lower than the highest daily traffic volumes generated at the busiest intersection in the CO hotspot analysis, as shown in Tables 3-10 and 3-11 of Appendix I. Therefore, the proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot either in the context of the 2003 hotspot analysis or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations. No impacts would occur related to CO hotspots. R'Rroi.manaoii iiiu4Vr w Dw Roma Revised i Swdy 0enei 7.d . 3-19 Initial Study E1—Pg 83 Criteria Pollutants from On -Site Construction As shown in Response 3b, with the implementation of RR AQ-1, which requires dust control for active grading areas, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to emissions that would exceed the ambient air quality standards. Toxic Air Contaminants A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was completed for the project (Appendix B of this IS/MND) to estimate the increased risk of health problems in people who are exposed to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (Urban Crossroads 2016b). The HRA used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) atmospheric dispersion modeling system (AERMOD) that combines emissions and meteorological data to calculate pollutant concentrations in the area surrounding the project site. The emission sources are project -related diesel trucks. These trucks operate in two modes: stationary idling and moving on and off the site. The emissions derived in the HRA conservatively assume that every truck accessing the project site will idle for 15 minutes under the unmitigated scenario, this is an overestimation of actual idling times and thus conservative.3 It should be noted that CARB's anti -idling requirements impose a 5-minute maximum idling time and therefore the analysis conservatively overestimates DPM emissions from idling by a factor of 3. Truck traffic volumes were estimated based on the Arrow Route 28 Acre Development Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads 2016d), which can be found in Appendix I. Additional details of HRA methods are included in Appendix B of this IS/MND. Potential Protect -Related Diesel Particulate Matter Source Cancer and Non -Cancer Risks Residential Exposure Scenario The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to project diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) source emissions is an existing residential home situated east of Etiwanda Avenue at a distance of more than 2,800 feet from the project site. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to project diesel PM source emissions is estimated at 0.23 in 1 million, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10.00 in 1 million. At this same location, non -cancer risks were estimated to be 0.0001, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0000. Worker Exposure Scenario The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to project diesel PM source emissions is located immediately north of the project site at the existing commercial center. For the maximally exposed individual (ME[), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact at this location is 0.04 in 1 million, which is less than the threshold of 10.00 in 1 million. At this same location, non -cancer risks were estimated to be 0.0001, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0000. 3 Although the Project is required to comply with CARB's idling limit of 5 minutes, staff at SCAQMD recommends that the on -site idling emissions should be estimated for 15 minutes of truck idling (personal communication, phone call, with James Koizumi, May 6, 2009), which would take into account on -site idling which occurs while the trucks are waiting to pull up to the truck bays, idling at the bays, idling at check -in and check-out, etc. RAP,.i..W1AM31aa010100m9.1 SWOTT M. Rem. R.,,..d 1n01.1 swd,90617.d... 3.20 Initial Study E1—Pg 84 1PTArrow Route DC Project School Child Exposure Scenario The school site land use with the greatest potential exposure to project diesel PM source emissions is located at the Perdew Elementary School located approximately 1 mile northeast of the project site at 13051 Miller Avenue in Etiwanda. For the maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact at this location is 0.001 in 1 million, which is less than the threshold of 10.000 in 1 million. At this same location, non -cancer risks were estimated to be 0.00001, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.00000. Proiect Maximum Contribution to Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts The HRA also considered the cumulative effect of toxic air contaminants (TACs). According to the HRA, project -source TACs would incrementally increase the background cancer risk by a maximum of 0.88 incidents per million population. The applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for project -level and cumulative TAC-source cancer risk impacts is 10 incidents per million population. The project would not exceed this established threshold; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3e. Less Than Significant Impact. Temporary odors related to construction equipment operations and construction material use, storage, and disposal would occur; however, these odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction -source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Substantial odor -generating sources generally include land uses such as agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or various heavy industrial uses. The project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational -source odor impacts. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the project would include disposal of miscellaneous refuse. Moreover, SCAQMD Rule 402 and Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air Containment Standards, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code act to prevent occurrences of odor nuisances. These standards address compliance with the rules and regulations of the air pollution control district and the State Health and Safety Code related to odorous emissions, particulate matter, and air containment; noxious odor emissions; restrictions on emission of dust and particulate matter; and location of exhaust air ducts away from abutting residentially zoned properties. Consistent with City requirements, all project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations. Potential operational -source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. R?ProlecU 1AR%31PA61016011nifial SWPIPT Ano Raule Reubed Indial SWdY06661I.don El—Pg 85 IPT Arrow Route DC Protect Less Than 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or 1-1 ® El ❑ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California ❑ ❑ ❑ Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, ❑ ❑ ❑ etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ Elestablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 ordinance? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ El ❑ or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The information presented in this section is based on the Biological Resources Analysis for the IPT Arrow Route 28 Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Habitat Assessment) prepared by Psomas in September 2016 (Psomas 2016a) found in Appendix C. As identified in the Habitat Assessment, a literature review and records search was conducted to identify special status plants, wildlife, and habitats that have been reported to occur near the project site. Following the literature review, a general habitat assessment of the project site was conducted to describe existing conditions and determine the site's potential to support special status biological resources. A detailed discussion of the methods is provided in the Habitat Assessment. Explanation of Checklist Answers 4a. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The majority of the project site consists of an abandoned vineyard with cultivated grapevines continuing to produce fruit. Semi -natural herbaceous stand occurs as a relatively wide swath along the southern portion of the project site and as narrower swathes along the northern, eastern, western edges; it also bisects the project site. This vegetation type is characterized by a mix of weedy native and RAPrsJocbtlAR1¢IAR0101001ni0a1 StudylPT Arrow Route Revised Inllial 6tudyA60617.docc 3-22 Initial Study t. Nil >. 0 Project Site Vegetation Types _ Abandoned Vineyard Semi -natural Herbaceous Stand Tree of Heaven Stand MrW4T1MWaW=W, Asnai Soume ESn NAIP 2014 Vegetation Map Exhibit 13 IPTJArrow Route DC Project 200 100 0 200 p Feet 'k— 1W 11,2311'.EW R P1a,B<It�AP•.4 APO 'I'OPO1.11N.. IS'2e I1 V.10010.01001 E1-Pg 87 IPTArrow Route DC Project non-native species. A tree of heaven stand is located near the center of the project site. stand is located near the center of the project site. Given the surrounding urban development and the project's proximity to Interstate 15, only urban -tolerant wildlife species are expected to occur on the project site. No fish or amphibian species were observed during the habitat assessment and are not expected to occur due to the absence of suitable aquatic habitat. Two common lizard species were observed at the project site; however, based on the habitats present, the project site is not expected to support an extensive variety of reptilian species. The majority of the wildlife observed during the habitat assessment consisted of avian species. One small mammal was observed during the habitat assessment and sign of additional small rodents were observed throughout the site. Plants or wildlife may be considered special status due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Certain special status species have been listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. According to the Habitat Assessment, 30 sensitive plant species and 29 sensitive wildlife species have been reported in the vicinity of the project site. No special status plant or wildlife species were observed on the project site during the habitat assessment. Additionally, none of the 'federally and/or State -listed as Endangered or Threatened plant or wildlife species reported in the vicinity have the potential to occur on the project site because the site does not support suitable habitat. Therefore, there would be no impact on listed species and no mitigation would be required. In addition to species formally listed by the resource agencies, a total of 21 plant species reported in the vicinity of the project site have a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1A, 1 B, or 2B, which may be considered constraints on development per Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Under existing conditions, two special status plant species — Brand's star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) and San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum)—have a low potential to occur on the project site due to the presence of marginally suitable habitat present (i.e., disturbed or open areas). However, these species are typically associated with riparian features (i.e., ditches, streams, springs, washes) which are not present on the site and the nearby reported records are historical; therefore, these species are not expected to occur. No impacts on special status plant species would occur and no mitigation is required. The remaining species are also not expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitat or because the project site does not fall within their current known elevation range. Although five species with a CRPR of 3 and 4 are also reported from the vicinity, these species are not typically considered constraints to development. In addition to species formally listed by the resource agencies, 22 special status wildlife species have been reported near the project site. Two special status wildlife species, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillil), also have low potential to occur on the project site due to the presence of marginally suitable habitat. Burrowing owls require suitable burrows; a single potential burrow, but no owl sign, was observed on the project site. Therefore, it is unlikely for the site to be occupied by the burrowing owl; however, project implementation may potentially impact burrowing owls should they occupy the site in the future. This potential impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1, requiring a pre -construction clearance survey for burrowing owls to be conducted prior to initiating ground disturbance. Impacts on coast horned lizard would be considered less than significant due to the limited amount of habitat loss relative to the availability of habitat for this species in the region. Therefore, no mitigation would be required. The remaining species are not expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. RAProleotellARgM(11010011n16al $W dIAIPT Arraw Route ReWeed Initial StudY060617.Enox M Several raptor species have the potential to nest within the mature trees immediately adjacent to the project site. If construction activities would occur during the raptor nesting season (i.e., February 1 to June 30), the loss of an active nest of any raptor species, including common raptor species, would be considered a violation of Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code and would be considered a significant impact. Impact on active nests would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MM BIO-2. In addition, vegetation within and adjacent to the project site has the potential to support birds (common and special status) subject to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA protects the taking of migratory birds and their nests and eggs. Bird species protected under the provisions of the MBTA are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 10.13). Any impact on an active bird nest would be considered a violation of the MBTA and would be considered a potentially significant impact. This impact would also be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-2, requiring that construction activities occur outside of the breeding season. 4b-4c. No Impact. During the habitat assessment, no drainage features or isolated wetland features were observed within the project site that would be considered jurisdictional by the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. Further, no sensitive plant communities were identified as having the potential to occur on the project site, and the project site is not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. The project site is located in the Delhi Sands flower - loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis) Ontario Recovery Unit. However, the nearest mapped Delhi soils are located approximately 3,000 feet south of the project site. Suitable habitat for this species is not present on the project site; therefore, Delhi Sands flower -loving fly is not expected to occur on the project site. No impacts would occur and no mitigation would be required. 4d. No Impact. The project site is entirely surrounded by urban development, including commercial, industrial, and transportation land uses and does not provide any connectivity between natural open space areas. No undeveloped, natural open space is located in the vicinity. The closest open space occurs within a powerline easement approximately 0.3 mile west of the project site. Therefore, the project site does not connect to larger areas of open space and would not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Only relatively mobile, urban -tolerant species are expected to move through the project site. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 4e. No Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Tree Preservation Municipal Code (Title 17, Development Code, Chapter 17.80) was established to protect trees considered to be a community resource from indiscriminate cutting or removal. Section 17.16.080 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code addresses tree preservation on private property. This portion of the Municipal Code requires a permit for the removal of all "heritage trees", defined as (1) all eucalyptus windrows; (2) any tree greater than 30 feet tall with a minimum trunk diameter at breast height (dbh) of 20 inches; (3) any multi -trunk tree having a total dbh of 30 inches; (4) a stand of trees the nature of which makes each tree dependent on the others for survival; and (5) historically or culturally significant trees as determined by the Planning Director. A tree of heaven stand is located near the center of the project site. However, none of these trees would be considered "heritage trees' as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Therefore, a tree removal permit would not be required for removal of the tree of heaven stand. In addition, there are gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.) planted adjacent to the western, eastern and northern boundaries of the project site. However, it is assumed that these trees would not be impacted by the proposed project; therefore, no impacts are expected to occur and no mitigation is required. R1Plejetl,k1AR 61FRo1010611nidal SNdyIPT Mow Rowe Revleed Ini0al Study-060618doa rmm] E1—Pg 89 IPrArrow Route DC Project 4f. No Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, and specifically the project site, is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Communities Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 A pre -construction clearance survey for burrowing owls should be conducted prior to initiating ground disturbance to ensure burrowing owls remain absent from the project site. The clearance survey should be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which requires that 2 clearance surveys be conducted 14 to 30 days and 24 hours prior to any grading or vegetation removal on the project site. Pre -construction surveys can be conducted at any time of year. If burrowing owls are observed, additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures may be required. This may include, but not be limited to, a burrowing owl passive relocation plan to be prepared and submitted to the CDFW for review and approval prior to commencement of vegetation clearing/grubbing, grading, and construction activities on the project site. The burrowing owl relocation plan will outline methods to passively relocate any burrowing owls and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. MM BIO-2 In order to avoid impacts on nesting birds and raptors (common or special status), construction activities should be scheduled during the non -breeding season (generally between September 16 and February 14 for nesting birds and between July 1 and January 31 for nesting raptors), to the extent practicable. If timing requires that construction activities be conducted during the breeding season (generally between February 15 and September 15 for birds and between February 1 and June 30 for raptors but can vary slightly from year to year based on seasonal weather conditions), a pre -construction survey or multiple surveys should be conducted by a qualified Biologist no more than 72 hours prior to disturbance to confirm the absence of active nests. If no active nests are found, no further measures would be necessary. If the Biologist finds an active nest within or adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted, he or she will identify an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. The active site will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities shall be required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest (the buffer shall be 300-500 feet for raptors), unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist and (2) access and surveying shall be restricted within the buffer of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist. Construction and/or encroachment into the buffer area around a known nest shall only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity would not disturb the nest occupants. R:\PlojecbMARUAROIO I O011ni0cl 5Wd %IP1 Mow Route Revsod WHO Study 06061IAocx E1—Pg 90 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Less Than 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of El El El 1K a historical resource as defined in §15064.57 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.6? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred El El El outside of formal cemeteries? The information presented in this section is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, IPT Arrow Route 28 Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (Phase I CRA) prepared by Psomas in August 2016 (Psomas 2016b) found in Appendix D. The Phase I CRA includes results of archaeological and historical records searches, a paleontological records search, and an archaeological field survey; a detailed discussion of the methods is provided in the CRA. Explanation of Checklist Answers 5a. No Impact. According to Figure LU-8, Historic Resources, of the 2010 General Plan Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Element, no historic resources are identified on the project site; however, Foothill Boulevard (Route 66) is identified as a Historic Transportation Route located approximately 0.25 mile north of the project site. Additionally, and consistent with the literature search conducted for the proposed project, there are 4 designated historic sites or Points of Historical Interest less than a''/z mile north of the project site. These consist of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad, a historic canal, and two historic structures/buildings. None of these 4 resources are closer than a'/< mile to the property. Based on the field surrey conducted for the CRA, with the exception of a sewer line, no structures are present on the property; the survey did not result in the identification of historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that merited recordation. Therefore, no historical resources are present on the project site or would be impacted directly or indirectly by project implementation. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 5b. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. According to the Phase I CRA, the field survey conducted for the CRA did not result in the identification of prehistoric archaeological resources. Nearly all of the project site has been heavily disturbed from previous agricultural activities and trenching associated with the sewer line. However, there is a possibility that buried archaeological materials, such as historic refuse or other resources, Although the project would have a low probability of disturbing previously unrecorded archaeological resources, a potential exists that unknown archaeological resources will be discovered during construction activities. Implementation of MM CULT-1 requiring a qualified Archaeologist to evaluate unanticipated discoveries would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Rea,ejennIARQIL 01010011WU sWEy9PT arrow Rowe aevaea mmm Swdy.ueaan.d c 3-26 Initial Study E1—Pg 91 IPT Arrow Route DC Project 5c. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. A paleontological resources records search and scientific literature review for the project area was conducted by Dr. Samuel McLeod of the Vertebrate Paleontology Section of the National History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) on August 5, 2016. The records search documents fossil localities previously identified in and adjacent to the project area. According to the NHMLAC: The entire proposed project area has surficial sediments composed of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as alluvial fan deposits from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, with fluvial contributions from Day Creek that currently flows immediately to the east. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, but they may be underlain at relatively shallow depth by older sedimentary deposits that do contain significant fossil vertebrate remains. The closest fossil vertebrate locality from similar older Quaternary deposits is LACM 7811, just west of south of the proposed project area west of Mira Loma along Sumner Avenue north of Cloverdale Road, that produced a fossil specimen of whipsnake, Masticophis, at a depth of 9 to 11 feet below the surface. Further to the south between Corona and Norco our vertebrate fossil locality LACM 1207 produced a fossil specimen of deer, Odocoileus. Shallow excavations in the younger Quaternary Alluvium exposed in the proposed project area are unlikely to encounter significant vertebrate fossils. Deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits, however, may well encounter significant remains of fossil vertebrates. Any substantial and deep excavations in the proposed project area, therefore, should be monitored closely to quickly and professionally recover any fossil remains while not impeding development. Also, sediment samples should be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the proposed project area. Any fossils collected should be placed in an accredited scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. Similar to archaeological resources, there is a potential that ground -disturbing activities associated with construction would encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Excavations of five feet or deeper that encounter native sediments have the potential to yield paleontological resources, representing a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CULT-2 requiring a qualified Paleontologist to evaluate unanticipated discoveries would reduce potential impacts to a level considered less than significant. 5d. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Phase I CRA, the majority of the project site has been heavily disturbed from previous agricultural activities and trenching associated with the sewer line, and there are no known formal cemeteries on the project site. However, this does not preclude the possibility that individual burial sites may be discovered during grading activities. Compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, which require the County Coroner to be notified immediately if any human remains are encountered, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures MM CULT-1 In the event that cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, the Contractor shall immediately cease all earth -disturbing RIPmImMA,R%3 R0101 OOVnWal 5WdyIIPT Nmw Route Revised Inllial Study 06061I.doex E1—Pg 92 IPTArrow Route DC Project activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Archaeologist (Project Archaeologist), subject to approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to evaluate the significance of the find and to determine an appropriate course of action. All artifacts except for human remains and related grave goods or sacred objects belong to the Property Owner. All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the Project Archaeologist. If any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, the Property Owner/Developer and Project Archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the appropriate local Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the tribe. All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling. Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or relocated at the project site shall be prepared in a manner for curation and the Project Archaeologist shall deliver the materials to an accredited curation facility approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within a reasonable amount of time. Non -Native American artifacts shall be inventoried, assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation, personal affiliation (prior ownership), function, and temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and reporting, these artifacts shall be subjected to curation or returned to the Property Owner/Developer, as deemed appropriate. Once ground -altering activities have ceased or the Project Archaeologist determines that monitoring activities are no longer necessary, monitoring activities may be discontinued following notification to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered artifacts, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered artifacts. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to archaeological and/or cultural resources. A copy of the report shall also be filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). MM CULT-2 If any paleontological resources (e.g., plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Paleontologist to evaluate unanticipated discoveries and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The Paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a Paleontological Monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full time during earth -disturbing activities. R TrojecWTAR91M00I00uniaal 5Ntly9PT Aunw Route Revbed InNal SNCy-050517.Eocx rrmmi E1—Pg 93 Divert earth -disturbing activities away from the immediate area of the discovery until the Paleontological Monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the Grading Contractor shall immediately divert construction and notify the Paleontological Monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (e.g., San Bernardino County Museum). • Prepare and submit a technical report describing the identification, salvage, evaluation, and treatment of all fossils discovered during grading to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the depository. R:\ProjocW R3tAR0101W1niWStudpdRTAno\v Route R<Vbed Initial 5WdyON617.doox 3-29 Initial Study E1—Pg 94 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ❑ ❑ Elthe most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. it) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and El ® ❑ El result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks ❑ ® ❑ ❑ to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems El ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Explanation of Checklist Answers Information presented in this section is derived primarily from the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Proposed Industrial Development, Northwest Corner of Arrow Route and Juneberry Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Geotechnical Investigation) and Soil Infiltration Study for the Proposed Industrial Development, Northwest Corner of Arrow Route and Juneberry Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California prepared for the proposed project by NorCal Engineering and dated July 22, 2016 (NorCal 2016a,b). The Geotechnical Investigation is provided in its entirety in Appendix E of this Initial Study. The Geotechnical Investigation includes a site reconnaissance, subsurface geotechnical exploration and sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analysis of field and laboratory data, and preparation of the geotechnical engineering report. RrProien9JARUWAR010r001dutl SNOpIRr Anew Route Royded inmer Study-ceoen.deo. 3-30 Initial Study El—Pg 95 6a(i). No Impact. No active or potentially active faults are known to exist at the project site. Additionally, the project site is not within a current State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. As shown on Figure PS-2, Fault Hazards, of the 2010 General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, the project site is located outside both existing and proposed Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Zones. The lack of active faults on the project site would preclude impacts related to surface fault rupture. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 6a(ii). Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and thus is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the project. Several known faults are located in the vicinity of the project site; the Red Hill Fault, located approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site, is the closest known active fault. Additionally, the Cucamonga Fault is located approximately 4 miles north of the City limits, at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains; the San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 10.5 miles to the northeast; and the San Bernardino segment of the San Andreas Fault zone is located approximately 13.6 miles to the northeast (Rancho Cucamonga 2010a). According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the proposed development lies outside of any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and the potential for damage due to direct fault rupture is considered remote. The site is located in an area of high regional seismicity and the Cucamonga Fault is located approximately three miles from the project site. Ground shaking originating from earthquakes along other active faults in the region is expected to induce lower horizontal accelerations due to smaller anticipated earthquakes and/or greater distances to other faults (NorCal 2016a). The risk for strong seismic ground shaking is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties throughout the Southern California region. As a mandatory condition of project approval, the Project Applicant would be required to construct the proposed building in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), also known as California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (Part 2), and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Code, which is based on the CBSC with local amendments. The CBSC and City's Building Code provide standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures and have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) requires development projects to prepare geologic engineering reports to identify site -specific geologic and seismic conditions and provide site -specific recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report provides site -specific ground preparation and construction recommendations, including specific recommendations related to removal and recompaction, fill blanket thickness and size, shrinkage and subsidence, temporary excavations, foundation design, settlement analysis, lateral resistance, retaining wall design parameters, slab design, pavement section design, utility trench and excavation backfill, corrosion design criteria, and expansive soil. MM GEO-1 requires incorporation of all geotechnical recommendations into the proposed project and would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. As such, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death, involving seismic ground shaking. R:Nmlects4ARMAR%O I OO11nital SNtlyMPT Prow Route Revised Initial Study 050617.doex E1—Pg 96 IPT Arrow Route DC Prolect 6a(iii). Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction may occur during strong ground -shaking events in areas with loose, geologically young, granular sediments where the groundwater depth is less than 50 feet. In the project area, groundwater depths are estimated at approximately 400 feet; therefore, the potential for liquefaction is very low (NorCal 2016a,b). Additionally, according to Figure PS-3 of the 2010 General Plan, the project site is located in an area that is not subject to liquefaction. Figure PS-3 also identifies other geotechnical hazards and identifies that the project site, along with the majority of the City, has the potential for regional seismic settlement. According to the site -specific geotechnical investigation, settlement generally occurs within areas of loose, granular soils with relatively low density. The project site is underlain by undisturbed alluvium soil classified as fine- to medium -grained, silty sand with gravel to a medium- to course -grained, gravelly sand with cobbles (medium density); therefore, the potential for settlement is considered low (NorCal 2016a). There would be less than significant impacts related to liquefaction and other ground failure and no mitigation is required. However, the design of the proposed project in conformance with applicable requirements outlined in the City and State building codes would ensure that potential impacts from ground -shaking hazards that are typical to Southern California remain less than significant. 6a(iv). No Impact. Earthquake -induced landslides occur in areas where previous landslides have occurred and in areas where the topographic, geologic, geotechnical, and subsurface groundwater conditions are conducive to permanent ground displacements. The project site and surrounding area is located in a generally flat, urbanized portion of the City with a maximum elevation of 1,183 feet in the northern region of the site to a minimum elevation of 1,162 feet in the southern region of the site (NorCal 2016a). According to Figure PS-3 of the 2010 General Plan, the project site is not located in an area that is susceptible to seismically induced landslides. Therefore, no impacts related to landslides would occur and no mitigation is required. 6b. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. According to Exhibit 4.7-4 of the 2010 General Plan EIR, the project site is located within a soil erosion hazard area, where underlying soils have a moderate to high erosion hazard and soil blowing hazard. Grading and excavation activities for construction may lead to localized erosion, as wind and water carry loose soils off site. Impacts associated with this issue are expected to be less than significant with adherence to applicable local, regional, and/or State requirements; however, implementation of MM GEO-1 and RR AQ-1, which requires dust control for active grading areas, would further reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 6c-6d. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. As noted previously, the project site is relatively flat and the potential for mass movement failures such as landslides, rockfalls, or debris flows is low. Additionally, ground settlement generally occurs within areas of loose, granular soils with relatively low density. The exploratory trenches conducted as part of the site -specific geotechnical investigation revealed that existing earth materials consist of fill and natural soil. Fill and disturbed top soils classified as a brown, fine- to medium - grained silty sand with gravel were encountered to a depth of one to three feet. These soils were noted to be loose and dry. An undisturbed alluvium soil classified as a brown, fine- to medium -grained silty sand with gravel to a medium- to course -grained gravelly sand with cobbles was encountered directly beneath the fill and observed to be medium dense and dry to damp (NorCal 2016a). According to the site -specific geotechnical investigation, expansive soils are fine-grained silts and clays that are subject to swelling and contracting. The amount of this swelling and contracting is subject to the amount of fine-grained clay materials present in the soils and the amount of moisture either introduced or extracted from the soils. On -site soils have an expansion index of 2 to 3, aw,oioot.'IAR%31AROIOIammiaai SWYIPrn,rm Route aevm mnizi smayuaoen.aoUU 3-32 Initial Study E1—Pg 97 !PT Arrow Route DC Project which corresponds to a very low expansion potential. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue are expected to be less than significant with adherence to applicable local, regional, and/or State requirements; however, implementation of MM GEO-1 and RR AQ- 1, which requires dust control for active grading areas, would further reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 6e. No Impact. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1 Prior to approval of final plans and specifications forthe IPTArrow Route project, the City Engineer, or his/her designee, shall review the project plans to confirm that all recommendations in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Industrial Development, Northwest Corner of Arrow Route and Juneberry Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California (dated July 22, 2016, and prepared by NorCal Engineering) and in any future geotechnical reports have been fully and appropriately incorporated. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following geotechnical areas: • Site Grading o Removal and Recompaction o Fill Blanket • Shrinkage and Subsidence • Temporary Excavations • Foundation Design • Settlement Analysis • Lateral Resistance • Retaining Wall Design • Slab Design • Pavement Section Design • Utility Trench and Excavation Backfill • Corrosion Design Criteria • Expansive Soil R.Taoleelu%IAR�31ARa l Ol oaaoi6al SludVAPT Mow Route Revised Initial Study060617.docr E1—Pg 98 Less Than 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Significant Significant With Less Than Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ ❑ greenhouse gases? The following section is based on the Arrow Route 28 Acre Development Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga (GHG Analysis), prepared by Urban Crossroads, which is included in its entirety in Appendix F. Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the Earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. Debate exists within the scientific community about whether or not GCC is occurring naturally or as a result of human activity. Some data suggest that GCC has occurred in the past over the course of thousands or millions of years. These historical changes to the Earth's climate have occurred naturally without human influence, as in the case of an ice age. However, many scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the industrial revolution (1900) is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGS in the Earth's atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), which are further described in the technical report included in Appendix F, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs due to human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years. The effects of climate change in California related to public health, water resources, agriculture, forests and landscapes, rising sea levels, and human health are described in Section 2.5 of the technical report included in Appendix F. An individual project like the proposed project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to effect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed project may contribute to the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which, when taken together, constitute potential influences on GCC. GHG emissions inventories from 2012 are presented in Table B. As shown, the United States, as a single country, was the number two producer of GHG emissions in 2012. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 83 percent of total GHG emissions. RJPralerWARNAR0101001IniSal SNdVIIPT Arrow Route Revised lnilial SNdy-050517docx 3-34 El—Pg 99 Route DC TABLE 8 TOP GREENHOUSE GAS PRODUCING COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION Emitting Countries' % :'GHG'Emis`sions'(Gg cbz6)" ' China 10,976,500 United States 6.665,700 European Union (28 member countries) 4,544,224 India 3,013,770 Russian Federation 2,322,220 Japan 1,344,580 Total 28,865,994 GHG: greenhouse gas; Gg: gigagrams; COze: carbon dioxide equivalent. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016c. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. CARB GHG inventory data indicates that in 2013 (the most recent inventory of record) California GHG emissions totaled approximately 459.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) (ARB 2009). Explanation of Checklist Answers 7a. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions. For CEQA purposes, the City has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Air Quality Management District's (AQMD's) adopted numerical threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year for industrial stationary source emissions has been applied because the proposed project is analogous to an industrial use much more closely than any other land use such as commercial or residential in terms of its expected operating characteristics. Also, 10,000 MTCO2e has been used as the significance threshold by many local government lead agencies for logistics projects throughout the SCAG region, since the AQMD adopted this threshold for its own use. Further, to ensure that the threshold is conservative in its application, although the AQMD uses their adopted 10,000 MTCO2e threshold to determine the significance of stationary source emissions for industrial projects, the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold is applied to all sources of project -related GHG emissions, whether stationary source, mobile source, area source, or other source. Use of this threshold is also consistent with guidance provided in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA and Climate Change handbook; as such, the City has opted to use a non -zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook. Threshold 2.5 (Unit -Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on the capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 10,000 MTCO2e per year for industrial projects. This threshold is based on the review of 711 CEQA projects. On October 2, 2013, the SCAQMD, in conjunction with the CAPCOA, released the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator ModelTM (CalEEModTM), version 2013.2.2. The purpose of this model is to more accurately estimate construction -source and operational -source criteria pollutant (NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and CO) and GHG R]Pmlec1s1AR\]IAROIUr➢N1dUa1 smdpwrarow Route Revised imam study-oeoen.doex 3-35 El—Pg 100 IPT Arrow Route DC Project emissions from direct and indirect sources and to quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for the proposed project to determine construction and operational air quality impacts. Output from the model runs for both construction and operational activity are provided in Appendix F. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the project's GHG emissions are also described in detail in the technical report included in Appendix F. Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project are described in Section 2.2.5 of this IS and would result in emissions of CO2 and CH4 from construction activities. For construction phase project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year project life, then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions and can be found in Table 9. Operations Operational activities associated with the proposed project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N20from the following primary sources: area source emissions; energy source emissions; mobile source emissions; solid waste; water supply, treatment, and distribution; and on -site equipment emissions. The project would result in approximately 1,410.17 MTCO2e per year from construction, area, energy, waste, and water usage. In addition, the project has the potential to result in an additional 3,506.34 MTCO2e per year from mobile sources if the assumption is made that all of the vehicle trips to and from the project are "new" trips resulting from project development; the project's trip generation and other assumptions related to mobile emissions are further discussed in the technical report included in Appendix F. The total amount of project -related GHG emissions, when accounting for applicable regulatory developments, would total 4,916.51 MTCO2e, as shown in Table 9. The proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, impacts associated with. GHG emissions would be less than significant on a cumulative basis and no mitigation is required. RT,.i.,ftUR%31AR6101001101.16WEy`IPT Arrow R.Wo R--dI ilml W ,060617,d..� 3-36 Initial Study E1—Pg 101 TABLE 9 ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ' ' - ' • y " -- "" ` .Emission Source - ', Emissions (mefiicions peryear) - _ Cbs CHe ­: _ "Nid Total Cb2'e Annual Construction -Related Emissions Amortized over 30 Years 32.15 4.48E-03 — 32.24 Area 0.03 0.00 0.00E+00 0.03 Energy 513.75 0.03 6.56E-03 516.36 Mobile (Trucks) 2,196.84 0.02 0 2,197.21 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 1,307.98 0.06 0 1,309.13 Waste 117.65 6.95 0 j 263.66 Water Usage 464.30 4.67 0.11 597.88 Total COze (All Sources) 4,916.51 COz: carbon dioxide; CHe: methane; N20: nitrous oxide: CO,e: carbon dioxide equivalent. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016c. Promulgated regulations that would affect the project's emissions are accounted for in the project's GHG emissions calculations. Additional information regarding plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG is provided below. 7b. No Impact. The technical report included in Appendix F includes a detailed discussion of international, federal, and State plans, policies, and regulations addressing the reduction of GHG emissions. Further, the technical report identifies mandates imposed by the State and SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of air quality emissions, including those that would also assist in the reduction of GHG emissions. In particular, the Pavley Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standards, and Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) will be in effect for the AB 32 target year of 2020, and, therefore, are accounted for in the project's emission calculations presented above. The consistency of the proposed project with key plans, policies, and regulations to reduce GHG emissions are discussed below; additional information is provided in the technical report included in Appendix F. Assembly Bill 1493, Clean Car Standards AB 1493, adopted September 2002, also known as Pavley I, requires the development and adoption of regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by noncommercial passenger vehicles, light -duty trucks, and other vehicles used primarily for personal transportation in the State. Although setting emissions standards on automobiles is solely the responsibility of the USEPA, the Federal Clean Air Act allows California to set State -specific emission standards on automobiles if the State first obtains a waiver from the USEPA. The USEPA granted California that waiver on July 1, 2009. The emission standards become increasingly more stringent through the 2016 model year. As discussed above, the project is required to comply with the established emission standards, which is accounted for in the project's emissions calculations; the project does not conflict with AB 1493. Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that RAPmjectaWR13IAR010 I Ca iAal 6NdNIPTP ow Route Revised Initial 6Ndy060617.daa El—Pg 102 1PT Affow Route DC Protect increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra's snowpack, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the EO established total GHG emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 1990 level by 2020 and to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050. The EO directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to coordinate a multiagency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. In March 2006, the Climate Action Team (CAT) published the Climate Action Team Report (the 2006 CAT Report) for Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. The 2006 CAT Report identifies a recommended list of strategies that the State could pursue to reduce climate change GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the Governor's targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies. EO S-3-05 is not a regulatory requirement and does not require local agencies or development projects to take any action to explicitly achieve the set targets. However, project implementation would not actively interfere with any future City -mandated, state - mandated, or federally -mandated retrofit obligations enacted or promulgated to legally require development City-wide, state-wide, or nation-wide to assist in meeting state - adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, including that established under Executive Order S-3-05. Assembly Bill 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (ARB 2006). This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable Statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce Statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emission level in 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of approximately 28.5 percent in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as "Business -As -Usual" [BAU]). CARB adopted a Scoping Plan to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector -specific reductions; integrates all CARB and California Climate Action Team early actions and additional GHG reduction measures; identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations; and outlines the role of the cap -and -trade program. On February 10, 2014, CARB released a Draft Proposed First Update of the Scoping Plan. The draft recalculates 1990 GHG emissions using new global warming potentials identified in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. Although CARB has released an update to the Scoping Plan and reduction targets from BAU, it is still appropriate to utilize the previous 28.5 percent reduction from BAU since the modeling tools available are not able to easily segregate the inclusion of the renewable portfolio standards and the Pavley requirements that are now included in the revised BAU scenario. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard are being implemented at the Statewide level and compliance at the project level is assumed through mandatory compliance with State laws. The project's consistency with the Scoping Plan is discussed below. R.1Projecn4ARgIPR010 100V.,bal 5mEy4PT Mow Route Revised IM d SWdr054517.d.cn El—Pg 103 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Executive Order B-30-15 In January 2015, Governor Brown established supplementary goals that would further reduce GHG emissions over the next 15 years. These goals include an increase in California's renewable energy portfolio from 33 percent to 50 percent, a reduction in vehicle petroleum use for cars and trucks by up to 50 percent, measures to double the efficiency of existing buildings, and decreasing emissions associated with heating fuels. Executive Order B-30-15 sets an ambitious new Statewide GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as a "mid-term" benchmark needed to achieve the 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It should be noted, however, that this target has not been formally enacted by the legislature or even CARB. As such, it does not appear to constitute a new regulation or requirement adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction of GHG emissions within the context of CEQA. Project implementation would not interfere with any future City -mandated, State - mandated, or federally mandated retrofit obligations enacted or promulgated to legally require development Citywide, Statewide, or nationwide to assist in meeting State -adopted GHG emissions reduction targets, including those established under EO B- 30-15. The project does not interfere with the State's implementation of EO B-30-15's target of reducing Statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, because it does not interfere with the State's implementation of GHG reduction plans described in CARB's Updated Scoping Plan, including the State providing for 12,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable distributed generation by 2020, the California Building Commission mandating net -zero energy homes in the building code after 2020, or existing building retrofits under AB 758. Consistency with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the State (BCS 2014). Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were published on July 1, 2016, and went into effect on January 1, 2017 (CEC 2015b)4. The 2016 Standards are estimated to be five percent more efficient than the 2013 Standards for nonresidential construction (CEC 2015). The requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards result in the reduction of natural gas and electricity consumption. The project would comply with or surpass incumbent Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure, and there would be no impact. Consistency with Title 24 Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code) Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the CALGreen Code. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to "improve public health, safety and general welfare 4 The 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would be applicable to building plans that are submitted and approved prior to December 31, 2016. RAPMscty AR1.331ARe1010m1nIXB1 SWdy1IPTA00w Rome Revised Initial Study-060617.don 3-39 Initial Study El—Pg 104 by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices" (CALGreen 2010). The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission. Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California are subject to the requirements of the CALGreen Code. The 2016 CALGreen Code went into effect January 1, 2017 (CBSC 2016).5 The CALGreen Code contains both mandatory and voluntary measures; for nonresidential land uses, there are 39 mandatory measures, including, but not limited to, exterior light pollution reduction, wastewater reduction by 20 percent, and commissioning of projects over 10,000 sf. There are two tiers of voluntary measures for nonresidential land uses for a total of 36 additional elective measures. The 2013 CALGreen Code includes additions and amendments to the water efficiency standards for nonresidential buildings in order to comply with the reduced flow rate table. The 2013 CALGreen Code has also been rewritten to clarify and definitively identify the requirements and applicability for residential and nonresidential buildings. Consistency with Senate Bill 375 and Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan (RTP). CARB, in consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS on April 7, 2016. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that provides a vision for regional transportation investments over a period of 20 years or more. Using growth forecasts and economic trends, the RTP/SCS identifies land use and transportation strategies to address the region's mobility needs for the future and, at the same time, promote sustainability by meeting air quality requirements and GHG emission reduction goals, preserving open space areas, and utilizing resources efficiently. The RTP/SCS integrates land use, transportation strategies, and transportation investments with regional GHG reduction targets set by CARB. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is expected to exceed the targets issued by CARB (SCAG 2016). It should be noted that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and associated growth assumptions; these assumptions are included in SCAG's regional planning programs and growth forecasts. The project would be consistent with the plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. The proposed project would not conflict with GHG reduction goals set forth in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. Consistency with the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan CARB has identified 39 Recommended Actions (qualitative measures) in its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (refer to Table 2-5 of Appendix F for more information). 5 The 2013 CALGreen Code would be applicable to building and site plans that are submitted and approved prior to December 31, 2016. RANo,,,WIAMWARma i WhUM SNdyIRT km, RW. R.v.d mrodi Swdy.osoen.&,, 3-40 Initial Study E1-Pg 105 IPT Arrow Route DC Protect Of the 39 measures identified, those that would be considered to be applicable to the proposed project would primarily be those actions related to transportation, electricity and natural gas use, green building design, and industrial uses. Consistency of the project with these measures is evaluated by each source -type measure below. Transportation CARB's Scoping Plan identifies nine transportation -related recommended actions. Action T-1 concerns improvements to light -duty vehicle technology for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. This action focuses on legislating improved controls for vehicle manufacturers and would not generally be considered applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of the Pavley standards is dependent on State implementation of vehicle fuel economy standards. Implementation of such a standard is not within the purview of this project. Therefore, as discussed above, the proposed project would not conflict with measures concerning the Pavley standards. Action T-2 concerns implementation of a low carbon fuel standard. To reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, CARB is developing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which would reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 as called for by Governor Schwarzenegger in Executive Order S-01-07. LCFS would incorporate compliance mechanisms that provide flexibility to fuel providers in how they meet the requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of such a standard is not within the purview of this project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with measures concerning the use of low carbon fuels. Action T-3 addresses regional transportation targets for reducing GHG emissions. SB 375 requires CARB to develop, in consultation with MPOs, passenger vehicle GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2035. It sets forth a collaborative process to establish these targets, including the appointment by CARB of a Regional Targets Advisory Committee to recommend factors to be considered and methodologies for setting GHG emissions reduction targets. SB 375 also provides incentives, such as relief from certain CEQA requirements for development projects that are consistent with regional plans that achieve the targets. Implementation of such a standard is not within the purview of this project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with measures concerning SB 375. Action T-4 is concerned with vehicle efficiency measures. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) with various partners continues to conduct a public awareness campaign to promote sustainable tire practices. CARB is pursuing a regulation to ensure that tires are properly inflated when vehicles are serviced. In addition, CEC, in consultation with CIWMB, is developing an efficient tire program focusing first on data gathering and outreach, then on potential adoption of minimum fuel -efficient tire standards, and, lastly, on the development of consumer information requirements for replacing tires. CARB is also pursuing ways to reduce engine load via lower friction oil and reduce the need for air conditioner use. CARB is actively engaged in the regulatory development process for the tire inflation component of this measure. Implementation of such a standard is not within the purview of this project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable measures. Action T-5 addresses electrification of ships at ports and is not applicable to the proposed project. Action T-6 also primarily addresses port operations and is not applicable to the proposed project. R:wmlecianNRo1NR0101oNlnOal swayUPT nnv, Rowe Revised Initial swayaeaen.aocc 3-41 E1—Pg 106 IPTArrow Route DC Project Action T-7 requires existing trucks/trailers to be retrofitted with the best available technology and/or CARB-approved technology. Implementation of such a standard is not within the purview of the proposed project since various trucks fleets from numerous commercial entities may access the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Action T-8 focuses on hybridization of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The implementation approach to Action T-8 is to adopt a regulation and/or incentive program that reduces GHG emissions by encouraging hybrid technology as applied to vocational applications that have significant urban, stop -and -go driving, idling, and power take -off operations in their duty cycle. Such applications include parcel delivery trucks and vans. Implementation of such a standard is not within the purview of the proposed project since various trucks fleets from numerous commercial entities may access the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Action T-9 concerns implementation of a high-speed rail system. This measure is not applicable to the project. Electricity and Natural Gas Action E-1/CR-1, together with Action GB-1 (Green Building), aim to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of utility energy programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards. The project would comply with or surpass incumbent Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Action E-2 encourages an increase in combined heat and power (CHP) use, or cogeneration, facilities. California has supported CHP for many years, but market and other barriers continue to keep CHP from reaching its full market potential. Increasing the deployment of efficient CHP will require a multipronged approach that includes addressing significant barriers and implementing incentives or mandates where appropriate. Implementation of such a standard is not within the purview of the proposed project; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Action E-3 concerns RPS for utilities and does not apply to development projects Action E-4 strives to promote solar -generated electricity. Project building designs will accommodate renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic solar electricity systems, appropriate to their architectural design(s). The project would therefore not conflict with the recommended measure. Action CR-2 strives to promote solar water heaters (SWH). CARB recommends that California pursue approaches with the goal of developing a viable SWH industry for 2020 and beyond. Implementation of such a standard is not within the purview of the project; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Water Use Implementation of all but two of the Recommended Actions related to water use are not within the purview of the proposed project. The two measures that apply are measures W- 1 (Water Use Efficiency) and W-3 (Water System Energy Efficiency). However, since the proposed project would not exceed the audit threshold of 25,000 MTCO2e from on -site combustion and related activities, the proposed project is consistent with and would not obstruct the Recommended Actions. R'Pn,,c 1AR131A 010100 WWI WAY IPT Anm R.A. Rem d InAW Md,.060617.du. El—Pg 107 Industrial Use Ail but one of the Recommended Actions related to industrial use are specific to oil and gas extraction, refining, and transmission and are not applicable to the proposed project. Action 1-1 targets large emitters of GHGs (in excess of 0.5 million metric tons [MMT]/year of carbon dioxide equivalent [CO2e]) for auditing. Because the proposed project would not exceed the audit threshold, it is consistent with and would not obstruct the Recommended Actions. Based on the above discussion, the project is consistent with the measure and actions of the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed SB 32 to codify the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15, requiring the State to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This goal is expected to keep the State on track to meeting the goal set by EO S-3-05 of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (California Legislative Information 2016a). AB 197 was signed at the same time and will ensure that the SB 32 goals are met by requiring CARB to provide annual reports of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and TACs by facility, City and subcounty level, and sector for stationary sources and at the County level for mobile sources. It also requires CARB to prioritize specified emission reduction rules and regulations and to identify specified information for emission reduction measures (e.g., alternative compliance mechanism, market -based compliance mechanism, and potential monetary and nonmonetary incentive) when updating the Scoping Plan (California Legislative Information 2016b). Development of the Project shall not impair the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the State of California from complying with the provisions of SB 32 and AB 197. ftlPmjecblWRi3IM0101004aidal StudOIPT Mow Route Revi¢ed Initial SWtly460517.diiR 3-43 Initial Study E1—Pg 108 IPT Arrow Route DC Project 8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ❑ ❑ ® ❑ materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident El El ® El involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- ❑ ❑ ❑ quarter -mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code El El ❑ Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) 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 people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ❑ ❑ ❑ working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where ❑ El ❑ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Unless otherwise noted, information presented in this section is derived from the Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 28.73-Acre Site, 12400 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Phase I ESA) prepared for the proposed project by RPS Iris Environmental in June 2016 (RPS Iris 2016). The Phase I ESA is provided in its entirety in Appendix G of this Initial Study. The objective of the Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), which are defined as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property' (RPS Iris 2016). R Trole tTIARVAR6101001Initial 5Ntly4PT Anew Route Revised In lial Stady-060517.docv El—Pg 109 Explanation of Checklist Answers 8a. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction -Related Impacts Construction of the proposed 611,573-sf industrial warehouse/distribution center would involve the use of materials common to all urban development that are labeled hazardous (e.g., paints and thinners; solvents and commercial cleansers; petroleum products; curing compounds), and would generate hazardous wastes, which could pose risks to construction workers or lead to soil contamination if not properly transported, stored, used, or disposed of. However, these materials are common to typical construction activities, such as those for the proposed project, and do not pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions. Compliance with existing regulations established by all federal, State, and local standards, including the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) and SCAQMD regulations would prevent the creation of hazards to construction workers. Contractors would also need to comply with pertinent regulations on the use, storage, handling, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials and wastes, including those listed in Section 4.8.1 of the General Plan EIR. Compliance with applicable regulations to prevent the creation of public safety hazards and the exposure of the construction crew to public safety hazards would result in a less than significant impact. Operational Impacts There is the potential for routine use, storage, or transport of other hazardous materials at the proposed facility; however, the precise materials are not known as the tenants of the proposed warehouse/distribution center are not yet defined. However, the building is proposed to be occupied by an industrial warehouse tenant as permitted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Industrial zoning designation. Although unlikely, it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the course of a future occupant's daily operations. In the event that hazardous materials are associated with warehouse operations, the materials would only be stored and transported to and from the site. Manufacturing and other chemical processing would not occur with the proposed warehouse/distribution center uses. Exposure of people or the environment to hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project may result from (1) the improper handling or use of hazardous substances; (2) transportation accidents; or (3) an unforeseen event (e.g., fire, flood, or earthquake). The severity of any such exposure is dependent upon the type and amount of the hazardous material involved; the timing, location, and nature of the event; and the sensitivity of the individual or environment affected. As noted above, it is possible that vendors may transport hazardous materials to and from the project site and the drivers of the transport vehicles must comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Hazardous materials or wastes stored on site would be subject to requirements associated with accumulation time limits, proper storage locations and containers, and proper labeling. Additionally, hazardous waste generators would be required to use a certified hazardous waste transportation company to remove any hazardous waste from the project site, which must ship hazardous waste to a permitted facility for treatment, storage, recycling, or disposal. R.APrajecIeUR101PA01CIO 01 rltal SludyUPT Nrow Route Revised Initial Shnly.060617.Locx E1—Pg 110 IPT Arrow Route DC Project The proposed project would comply with all existing hazardous material regulations. Specifically, the project would comply with regulations identified above, which are established to ensure that industrial and commercial users, generators, and transporters provide operational safety and emergency response measures so that no major threats to public health and safety are created. Additionally, any business handling at any time that is greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material is required, under AB 2185, to file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. The intent of the HMBEP is to satisfy federal and State Community Right -to -Know laws and to provide detailed information for use by emergency responders. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 8b. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, a Phase I ESA was prepared for the site to determine historic land uses on or near the site that may have adversely affected site conditions. A detailed discussion of the methods used to conduct the Phase I ESA is provided in the report included in Appendix G. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site consisted of vacant land from as early as 1897 until 1938, when it was developed for agricultural production. An unnamed ephemeral creek traversed the northwestern corner of the site from 1939 until 1990. No recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs, or historical RECs are identified on or associated with the project site. Although not documented on the project site, activities commonly associated with agricultural uses include the use and storage of hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., agricultural chemicals). Information was not available as to the potential historical usage of pesticides, fertilizers, or insecticides on the project site. However, these residual concentrations, if present, are not typically at concentrations that would require cleanup by a regulatory agency or pose a significant human health risk to commercial or industrial site users (RPS Iris 2016). Despite the presence of nearby industrial facilities and based on information reviewed by RPS Iris as part of the Phase I ESA, including an environmental database report, no obvious potential environmental impacts to the site from current or historical uses of the surrounding properties were identified. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 8c. No Impact. No existing or proposed school facilities are located within a 1%-mile radius of the project site. The nearest schools are Carleton Lightfoot Elementary, located approximately 2.1 miles northwest of the project site, and Rancho Cucamonga High School, located approximately 2.2 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related to hazardous emissions within a 1/<— mile radius of an existing or proposed school. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 8d. No Impact. According to the results of the Phase I ESA and a review of the CaIEPA's Cortese List Data Resources, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2016). Therefore, the project does not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to the presence of an existing hazardous materials site R.1Praeob4,1R19dR0101001Initlal Slu VIPT Nmw Route Raviaetl Initial Studp660617,do[e E1—Pg 111 identified on a list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 8e. No Impact. There is no airport in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest airport to the City is the Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport, located approximately four miles southwest of the project site. According to the Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP), adopted in April 2011, the project site is located on the edge of the Airport Influence Area and outside of the airport's noise impact zones (Ontario 2011). The ONT ALUCP states that Rancho Cucamonga is not an affected jurisdiction for noise. Also, the ONT ALUCP does not impose any land use restrictions on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to public airports would occur and no mitigation is required. 8f. No Impact. The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people to excessive noise levels. The nearest private airport is the Cable Airport, located approximately 8.4 miles west of the project site in the City of Upland. The runway protection zone (RPZ) for this airport does not extend into the City. Aircraft operations at this airport and other activities at this airport would not be adversely affected by development associated with the proposed project. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 8g. Less Than Significant Impact. In 2009, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Rancho Cucamonga Emergency Operations Plan, which addresses the City's planned response to extraordinary emergency situations (Rancho Cucamonga 2009). This document incorporates principles of both the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and provides an overview of operational concepts; details components of the City's emergency management organization; and delegates responsibilities and authorities for plan implementation. This City is currently updating the Emergency Operations Plan; however, the proposed project does not include any uses that would impede or interfere with implementation of this plan. Additionally, in January 2013, the City released the City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to assess natural and manmade hazards with the potential to impact the City and its inhabitants and to establish measures to mitigate or reduce future losses associated with these hazards (Rancho Cucamonga 2013). The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by the City in 2014. As discussed above, the project would not exacerbate existing hazardous conditions, nor would it expose people or structures to areas of known natural or manmade hazards. Therefore, the project would not interfere with implementation of the plan. No mitigation is required. 8h. No Impact. As shown on Figure PS-1 of the 2010 General Plan, the project site is located outside all designated fire hazard areas. The project site is largely surrounded by development, with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. The nearest designated fire hazard areas are located approximately two miles north of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildland fires. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. R\Pm]acWIAFSWMt01010OUV Stud ViAR.w RnW R.v.ed mum sway 0e0617.d.. 3-47 El—Pg 112 IPT Arrow Route DC Proiect Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El❑ ® ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ El ® El or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage El El ® El or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood El❑ El Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ❑ ❑ ❑ result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Unless otherwise noted, information presented in this section is derived from the Preliminary Hydrology Report for IPT Arrow Route Industrial (Hydrology Report) prepared for the proposed project by Huitt-Zollars, Inc. (August 2016). The Hydrology Report is provided in its entirety in Appendix H of this Initial Study. The hydrologic analysis was prepared using the methodology outlined in the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) Hydrology Manual. A rational method analysis was completed for the proposed 100-year return event using CivilD software. The 100-year, 1-hour rainfall rate was taken from the isohyetal maps in the County of San Bernardino Hydrology Manual. The hydrologic soils type for the site is "A" and was taken from the R Tr,l SAR']IARSI%59Widal SWIVT N,ow R-N Rw,Md k?.1 SmdyAGQS 17.d.c. 3-48 Initial Study E1—Pg 113 IPT Arrow soil map in the Hydrology Manual. A "commercial' land use was used with an antecedent moisture condition (AMC) of III. Explanation of Checklist Answers 9a, 9f. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction Impacts The project would involve construction activities that would generate pollutants (e.g., sediments, building materials, and wastes) and other on -site materials that could enter the storm water drainage system. Construction -related activities that are primarily responsible for sediment releases are related to exposing previously stabilized soils to potential mobilization by rainfall/runoff and wind. Such activities include removing vegetation from the site, grading the site, and trenching for infrastructure improvements. Environmental factors that affect erosion include topographic, soil, and rainfall characteristics. Non - sediment -related pollutants that are also of concern during construction relate to construction materials and non -storm water flows and generally include construction materials (e.g., paint and stucco); chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products used in building construction or the maintenance of heavy equipment; and concrete and related cutting or curing residues. Without appropriate storm water management, construction site runoff would enter adjacent storm drain lines and would contribute to pollutants in the storm water. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a framework for regulating potential water quality impacts from construction activities through the NPDES program. Construction contractors would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. This permit requires the discharger to perform a risk assessment for the proposed development (with differing requirements based upon the determined level) and to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (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 would 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 during construction is also a required component of the SWPPP. Erosion -control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap or filter sediment once it has been mobilized. In addition to erosion- and sediment -control BMPs, the following types of BMPs would be implemented, as needed, during construction: waste and materials management; non -storm water management; training and education; and inspections, maintenance, monitoring, and sampling. All discharges from qualifying storm events would be sampled for turbidity and hydrogen potential (pH); testing results would be compared to numeric action levels (NALs) specified in the Construction General Permit to ensure that BMPs are functioning as intended. If discharge sample results fall outside these NALs, a review of causative agents and the existing site BMPs would be undertaken and maintenance and repair of existing BMPs would then be performed and/or additional BMPs would be provided to ensure that future discharges meet these criteria. The construction -phase BMPs would ensure effective control of not only sediment discharge but also of pollutants associated with sediments (e.g., nutrients, heavy metals, and certain pesticides, including legacy pesticides). Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, including preparation of an SWPPP would ensure impacts from the proposed project to receiving RlProjec%%AR\61ARDIOIONIni0a? 6WdyVT Anow Reuto ReAsed In Mal 6Wdy.060617.docn El—Pg 114 Route waters from storm water and non -storm water discharges during construction are less than significant. Operational Impacts As previously discussed, the project site is currently undeveloped. The proposed project would result in the conversion of existing on -site permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces, thereby altering the current drainage pattern of the site. The proposed project would introduce impervious surfaces that would include a warehouse building, parking areas, trash collection areas, loading docks, roadway improvements, and outdoor activities that may lead to pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, trash and debris, and potentially pathogens [bacteria/viruses]) entering the storm water. In addition, landscaped areas may potentially contribute to suspended solids and sediments, pesticides (including fertilizers and herbicides), and nutrients that may enter the storm water. These pollutants may lead to the degradation of storm water quality in downstream water bodies. It should be noted that there would be a reduction in sediments with implementation of the proposed project as landscaped areas, pervious surfaces, and BMPs would reduce suspended sediment in runoff compared to the existing undeveloped condition. Pollutant concentrations in urban runoff are extremely variable and are dependent on storm intensity, land use, elapsed time since previous storms, and the volume of runoff generated in a given area that reaches a receiving water. As such, potential water quality impacts are related to the increase in the peak runoff, new urban uses, and the sensitivity of the receiving water. The primary receiving waters for runoff from the project site are Day Creek and Santa Ana River Reaches 1 through 3 (RWQCB 2017a). Therefore, the pollutants that could potentially be generated by the proposed project would add to existing impairments for Santa Ana River Reach 3 for bacteria (RWQCB 2017b). While the existing storm drain facilities are adequate to handle storm water runoff from the project site during the 100-year storm event (refer to the analysis provided for Thresholds d and e, below), there are no defined, downstream regional storm water quality facilities specifically designed to mitigate the pollutants in the runoff from the proposed project. Therefore, all storm water quality mitigation is proposed to be accomplished on site. A WQMP is required for all new development and redevelopment per the 2010 General Plan. Exhibit 9, Conceptual BMP Plan, depicts the storm water quality system for the proposed project. Based on the water quality management system, a number of BMPs outlined in the WQMP would be utilized to address storm water quality mitigation requirements. The Low Impact Development (LID) and BMP systems would generally be sized to handle the two-year water quality storm event, per County requirements. Based on the conceptual BMP Plan, the proposed project would include the following structural BMPs: Contech underground infiltration system; installation of a curb -opening catch basin bioclean filter; and installation of a grated catch basin bioclean filter. Development of the proposed project would also have to comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 19.20 of the City's Municipal Code), 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. Implementation of on -site BMPs would remove pollutants in the storm water from the site and prevent contributions to water pollution at Cucamonga Creek, Mill Creek, Chino Creek, and the Santa Ana River. Therefore, with implementation of the water quality R:'Plgi< WIAeoinRoiammi bM SWdy4RT Armw Rome R.mrza 1W.1 Swd,0e0e17go. 3-50 Initial Study El—Pg 115 IPT Arrow Route DC Project features identified here, impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. 9b. Less Than Significant Impact. Potable water service is provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), with the largest amount of water supply coming from the Chino Groundwater Basin. According to Figure RC-3 of the 2010 General Plan, the project site is not located within a recharge basin. Although implementation of the proposed project would reduce the pervious areas available for potential natural recharge (due to the construction of the industrial warehouse/distribution center building, parking areas, roadway improvements, and sidewalks), the area of the project site is relatively small (26.63 acres) in relation to the total size of the Chino Groundwater Basin, and the project site's only existing source of water is from direct precipitation, providing little opportunity to recharge under existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 91 Less Than Significant Impact. There are no existing water bodies or drainage courses on the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. However, as previously discussed in Responses 9a and 9f, development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of on -site permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces, which would alter the current drainage pattern of the project site. By increasing the amount of impervious surfaces on the site (89 percent post - development), more surface runoff would be generated and the rate and volume of runoff could increase. As discussed in Section 2.2, Project Description, of this IS, the proposed drainage design of the project site would be separated into west and east areas to mimic the existing drainage areas. The project would include installation of an on -site storm water collection, retention, and storm drain system, as illustrated on Exhibit 9, Conceptual BMP Plan, that would be of sufficient size to accommodate runoff from the project site. The existing 54-inch storm drain that currently traverses the project site would be relocated to a proposed 20-foot easement within the western portion of the project site. This new storm drain would accommodate storm water flows from the western portion of the project site, collected via a series of catch basins, storm drain pipelines, and infiltration systems, and would discharge to the existing 12-inch by 12-inch RCB in Arrow Route. Drainage from the eastern portion of the project site would be collected via a series of catch basins, storm drain pipelines, infiltration systems, and an infiltration basin, and would discharge to the RCB in Arrow Route. According to the Preliminary Drainage Report For IPT Arrow Route Industrial (October 5, 2016), prepared by Huitt Zollars for the proposer} project, the maximum 100-year flow (QIi which can be discharged from the project site to the RCB in Arrow Route is 53.9 cfs. However, from the hydrologic analysis, the total Q,00 (100-year flood) generated from the project site and new street development is 87.22 cfs; therefore, the proposed project would be detained in the infiltration basin and infiltration systems on the project site would be sized to accommodate the 33.32 cfs difference in storm water flow. All proposed drainage and storm drain facilities would be sized adequately for the 100-year storm event (Huitt-Zollars 2016). Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Additionally, a WQMP has been prepared for the proposed project, which includes BMPs to be implemented during and after construction to minimize and control runoff volumes. Based on the conceptual BMP Plan (refer to Exhibit 9, Conceptual BMP Plan), the proposed project would include the following structural Blvi Contech underground infiltration system; installation of a curb -opening catch basin bioclean filter; and installation of a grated catch basin bioclean filter. With the construction of on -site drainage improvements and the relocation of the existing 54-inch storm drain detailed in Section ROPtoje6e\WRUTAR01010011ni4vi Study1lPT know Route Revleed In Rini 6mdy060617.di El—Pg 116 volt] 2.2 Project Description and illustrated in Exhibit 8, of this IS, storm drain capacity for the proposed project would be adequate. 9g-9h. No Impact. As shown on Figure PS-5 of the 2010 General Plan, the project site is located in a minimum flood hazard area, which is outside the 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard area. Additionally, the project site does not contain any drainages or large water bodies that would pose a flood hazard. Therefore, the project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area or in areas that would redirect flood flows. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 9i. No Impact. As noted above in Responses 9g and 9h, the project site is located outside the 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard area. As shown on Figure PS-6 of the 2010 General Plan, the project site is located outside all identified dam inundation areas. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 9j. No Impact. There is no potential for the project site to be affected by a seiche or tsunami (earthquake -generated wave) due to the absence of any large open bodies of water near the site. The Etiwanda Control Facility and Reservoir is located approximately 700 feet east of the project site; however, this facility does not hold any water and does not pose a threat related to tsunamis or seiches. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. R 1WolectMIAM31AR0101001 Ini0aI 5Wdy11FT Nnow Rauto RevoH Initial SWdy-060617.daax Study El—Pg 117 Less Than 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ natural community conservation plan? Explanation of Checklist Answers 10a. No Impact. As shown in the aerial photograph provided in Exhibit 1 and further discussed in Section 2, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project site is currently vacant and consists of overgrown/fallow agricultural land. Surrounding land uses include a commercial/retail shopping center to the north; industrial uses, including a commercial metals company and an air -liquid products facility to the south and west; and a distribution/warehouse building and storage facility to the east. As part of the proposed project, an industrial warehouse/distribution center would be constructed on the project site. Because the surrounding developments currently exist independently of one another, implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 10b. No Impact. The project site has a General Plan and zoning designation of GI (Rancho Cucamonga 2010b 2012). According to the 2010 General Plan, the GI designation permits a wide range of industrial activities that include manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. Since the proposed project does not require changes to the existing land use or zoning designations, the project is considered to be consistent with both the Land Use Element of the 2010 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the proposed project would comply with the development standards for industrial districts as identified in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Particularly relevant to the proposed project, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS addresses goods movement throughout the region and identifies that the SCAG region is home to one of the largest clusters of logistics activities in North America. One of the regional challenges identified in the 2016-2014 RTP/SCS is "Moving Goods Efficiently in a Huge and Complex Region". As stated: Southern California is the nation's epicenter for distribution and logistics activity, and it will continue to be a significant source of well -paying jobs in the region through 2040. The region has close to 1.2 billion square feet of facility space for warehousing, distribution, cold storage and truck terminals. Nearly 1.1 billion square feet of this space is occupied. By 2040, the region may experience a shortfall of more than 527 million square feet of warehouse space, relative to demand (SCAG 2016). R:Wmlects\WRUMIC 10 1001%al SWdi Mmw Ruule Revised Initial SWtly060611.docv E1—Pg 118 IPTArrow Route DC Project The proposed project would address this challenge through development of industrial uses. The proposed project does not meet the criteria established in the State CEQA Guidelines for being "of statewide, regional, or areawide significance'; therefore, an assessment of the project's consistency with regional planning plans/programs is not required. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 10c. No Impact. As previously discussed in the Biological Resources section of this IS, the project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. R!PmlecMAR'31M010100.1.t.l S.dy IPT M— ROWe Rev.I.d In.I lSNd,-060617.tlov 3-54 Initial Study El—Pg 119 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Less Than 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) 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? b) 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? Explanation of Checklist Answers 11a-11b. No Impact. Figure 4.11-1, Mineral Land Classification, of the 2010 General Plan EIR shows that the proposed project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), as classified by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB). MRZ-3 is classified as an area where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits exist or are likely to exist; however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. However, Figure RC-2, Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources, of the 2010 General Plan shows that the project site is not located in an aggregate resource area. Accordingly, no impact to the availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site would occur. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. R.\PrulectsUR%3 M010100Wd0el StudyVPT Grow Route Revbed IrRal SWtly-O60617.doex E1—Pg 120 !PT Arrow Route DC Project Less Than 12. NOISE Potentially significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the oroiect result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El ® El El vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ without the project? e) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ED area to excessive noise levels? Information presented in this section is based on the Noise Impact Analysis, Arrow Route 28 Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Noise Analysis) prepared by Psomas in October 2016 for the proposed project (Psomas 2015c) and included as Appendix I. "Noise" is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. It is described in units called the decibel (dB), which are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. To accommodate this phenomenon, the A -scale was devised; the A -weighted decibel scale (dBA or dB[Aj) approximates the frequency response of the average healthy ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. Several rating scales (or noise "metrics') exist to analyze effects of noise on a community. The community noise equivalent level (CNEQ represents the 24-hour average sound level with penalties for noise occurring in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The evening sound levels are assigned a 5-dBA penalty, and the nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10-dBA penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels. The nearest residential community is located 2,149 feet northwest of the project site. There are sensitive receptors located along one of the project's access routes. Specifically, multiple -unit and single-family homes are located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, which is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site and would be used as one of the routes for cars and trucks traveling to and from the project site. The other principal routes for accessing the project site would not be in the vicinity of sensitive receptors. R)ProlechVAR19AR0101DO' Initat Stu yVT Arrow Rowe Revised Itool Study-060617.dov 3-56 E1—Pg 121 Relevant Policies and Regulations According to the 2010 General Plan, the Normally Acceptable maximum noise exposure for industrial land uses is 75 dBA CNEL, as shown in Exhibit 14. The Conditionally Acceptable maximum noise exposure for industrial uses is 80 dBA CNEL. As detailed in the Noise Analysis included as Appendix I, Section 17.66.050, Noise Standards, of the Development Code identifies exterior noise standards and defines special exclusions, or activities that are exempted from the identified noise standards. In summary, the following are exempted from the provisions of the Development Code: a. When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. b. When adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. Additionally, Sections 17.66.070, Vibration, and 17.66.030, Points of Measurement, of the Development Code identify vibration standards and Section 17.66.110, Special Industrial Performance Standards identifies performance standards specific to industrial uses related to both maximum noise and vibration. Regulatory Requirements The following RRs are incorporated as part of the proposed project and would be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. RR NOI-1 Noise -generating construction activities shall comply with Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code as follows: • Construction adjacent to commercial or industrial uses shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM on all days and shall not exceed 70 A - weighted decibels (dBA) at the adjacent property line c Explanation of Checklist Answers 12a. Less Than Significant Impact. Noise -Land Use Compatibility The primary sources of noise at the project site are traffic on 1-15 and Arrow Route, and noise related to industrial uses. According to the 2010 General Plan EIR, the modeled existing CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline of Arrow Route on the segment of Arrow Route south of the project site is 71.0 dBA and the modeled future 2030 CNEL with buildout of the 2010 General Plan on this segment of Arrow Route is estimated to be 74.8 9 The noise level limits in RR NOI-1 are assumed to be average noise levels, Leg, based on Section 17.66.050.C, Exterior Noise Standards, which uses a "basic" noise level that is interpreted to be Leq. R7mjedsVAFu31AR0l0l iXaI St,,,i ARow Route Revised Initial Slutly-06061]Awr 3-57 Initial Study El—Pg 122 Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL, dBA Land Use Category 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential - Low Density Single Unit, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential - Multiple Unit, Mixed Use Lodging - Hotels Schools, Libraries, Community Centers, Religious Institutions, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arenas. Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Outdoor Recreation (Commercial and Public) Office, Retail and Commercial .. .. .. .... ........ � NW ..... ........ ........ Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, I Agriculture 55 60 65 70 75 80 Normally Acceptable - Normally Unacceptable Specified land use is sat sfactory based upon Ne,v construction or development should generally the assumption that any buildings involvec are be discouragec. If new construction or development of normal conventional construction without any does proceed. a detailed analyse of tie noise spec a] noise Irsulation requirements, reduction regdrements must be made with reedec roise insulaJor `salutes inclided in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. - Conditionally Acceptable Nam constriction or development shoud oe undertaker only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is mace and needed noise insulation features are Included in tie desgn. Conventional construction but win closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air corddoning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. \t�1� Clearly Unacceptable New construction or development should generally rot oe undertaken. Crstruction costs to make the irdoor environmen: acceptable would be prohibi:ive and the outdoor environment would not be usable. Source. Rancho Cucamonga 2010 Noise Compatibility Matrix Exhibit 14 IPT Arrow Route DC Project .•]i=..- . Yilditip Mf El-Pg 123 dBA. The southern site boundary is approximately 24 feet from the centerline of Arrow Route; therefore, at the southern site boundary the 2030 CNEL levels would potentially exceed the General Plan's Conditionally Acceptable 80 dBA CNEL noise compatibility limit. However, there is a proposed landscape setback of 25 feet from Arrow Route. Beyond the 25-foot landscape setback, the noise level is estimated to be 77.9 dBA and would not exceed the General Plan Conditionally Acceptable 80.0 dBA CNEL noise compatibility limit. The modeled existing CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline of the segment of 1-15 nearest the project site is 80.6 dBA and the modeled future 2030 CNEL with buildout of the 2010 General Plan on this segment of 1-15 is 81.2 dBA. The project site is nearest to 1-15 at its northwest corner, which is approximately 60 feet from the edge of 1-15 and approximately 150 feet from the centerline of 1-15. Without noise abatement, the CNEL in the northwest corner of the project site would be 79.4 dBA. The building facade nearest to 1-15, which is approximately 300 feet from the centerline of 1-15, would have a CNEL of 76.4 dBA. Therefore, CNEL levels within the project site nearest 1-15 would be within the General Plan's Conditionally Acceptable 80 dBA CNEL noise compatibility range for industrial uses. As discussed above, the proposed building site would be within the Conditionally Acceptable range for industrial land uses. In this range, the Rancho Cucamonga guidelines recommend, "New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning, will normally suffice". The building's offices would be constructed with closable dual pane windows and air conditioning, which would ensure that the interior noise levels are at least 20 dBA less than exterior noise levels and at an acceptable level for office use. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the applicable noise standards. The impact would be less than significant. Construction As discussed previously, noise associated with construction is exempt from the provisions of Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the Development Code provided that, when adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, no noise generating activity would occur between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and noise levels would not exceed 70 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. Construction activities for the proposed project would be limited to the hours specified in the City Development Code (refer to RR N0I-1). As discussed in Response 12d, the anticipated construction noise levels at nearby commercial and industrial uses would not exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would be compatible with the applicable noise standards. The impact would be less than significant. Operational Noise from On -Site Sources Primary on -site noise sources during project operations would generate noise consistent with general industrial land uses, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, truck loading and unloading, and internal vehicular circulation. According to the industrial noise limits shown in Table 2 of the Noise Analysis, the applicable noise limits would fall within the Class B standards of 80 dB on the project site and 65 dB at a residential property line. There are no residential properties in the vicinity R:iRoIeote\WR0AR01010011nibaI 5lutlygPT Maw Route Rev iaeE InNvl SWd¢060617.tlocx 3-58 Initial Study E1—Pg 124 of the proposed project site. Further, noise caused by motor vehicles is exempt from these limits. As discussed in Threshold c below, operation of the proposed project would not exceed the Industrial Noise Limits of 80 dBA on the property and 65 dBA at the nearest residential property line. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the applicable noise standards. The impact would be less than significant. 12b. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Construction According to Section 17.66.070, Vibration, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, construction activity is exempt from the City's "discernible vibration" standard. However, the Noise Analysis analyzed the potential for structural damage from vibration according to the Caltrans vibration damage potential guideline thresholds detailed in Table 3 of the Noise Analysis. The nearest structures to the project construction areas are the industrial storage facilities located immediately west of the project site. According to the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds, these structures are considered "modern industrial/commercial buildings'; therefore, the criterion for a significant impact is 0.5 peak particle velocity (ppv) inch per second (in/sec) from continuous/frequent intermittent sources and 2.0 ppv in/sec from transient sources. Pile driving and blasting are generally the sources of the most severe vibration during construction. Neither pile driving nor blasting would be required during project construction. Conventional heavy construction equipment would be used for mass grading. Table 10 summarizes typical vibration levels measured during construction activities for various vibration -inducing pieces of equipment at a distance of 25 feet. TABLE 10 VIBRATION LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION Equipment ppv at 25 ft (in/sec) Vibratory roller 0.210 Large bulldozer 0.089 Caisson drilling 0.089 Loaded trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small bulldozer 0.003 ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet; in/sec: inch(es) per second. Source: Psomas 2016c. The industrial storage facilities west of the project site include a structure that is adjacent to the proposed project boundary. Grading and construction activities could occur up to the property lines, which would be closer than the 25-foot distance identified in Table 10; therefore, there is a potential to exceed the structural damage criterion of 0.5 ppv in/sec if a vibratory roller would be used within 15 feet or if a large bulldozer or similar equipment would be used within 8 feet of the adjacent structure. In order to avoid a potentially significant vibration annoyance impact during demolition and grading activities, MM NOI-1 would be incorporated into the project. MM NOI-1 requires that it be demonstrated that vibratory rollers would not be used within 15 feet of an off -site R lPtolecM W61FR01010Plnihal 6Ndy'IPT Mow Route Rwi-d lnaW SW060617.docx 3-59 El—Pg 125 IPT Arrow Route DC Project building and that large bulldozers or similar heavy equipment would not be used within 8 feet of an off -site building. Vibratory rollers operated in the static mode would be allowed. MM NOW would reduce potential grading vibration impacts to a less than significant level. Operational The City's Industrial Performance Standards exempt vibration caused by motor vehicles from the City's discernible vibration standard. There are no other anticipated operational activities that would cause discernable vibration beyond the property line. The impact would be less than significant. 12c. Less Than Significant Impact. Traffic Noise to Off -Site Receptors A 3 dBA increase is considered a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to project -generated traffic. A doubling of traffic volume is necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA, assuming no change in fleet mix or average speed. Based on the data included in the project traffic impact analysis, the proposed project would generate an estimated 1,036 vehicle trips per day (Urban Crossroads 2016d). Trips generated by the proposed project would exit the site on Arrow Route and either travel east or west of the project site. Of the principal roads used to access the project site, only Etiwanda Avenue, located approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site, is in the vicinity of sensitive receptors. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed project would result in an increase in average daily traffic (ADT) volume on Etiwanda Avenue from 16,142 to 16,453. This small increase in traffic volumes would result in 0.12 dBA increase in noise from traffic along Etiwanda, which is less than the 3.00 dBA threshold. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, Arrow Route east of Etiwanda Avenue would also be used to access the site and there are sensitive receptors on the northern side of Arrow Route east of Etiwanda Avenue; however, according to the Traffic Impact Analysis, only 42 passenger car trips and no truck trips generated by the proposed project would travel on this portion of Arrow Route (Urban Crossroads 2016d). The addition of 42 passenger car trips on Arrow Route would increase the traffic volumes on Arrow Route by less than 1 percent and would therefore result in a negligible increase to ambient noise levels. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Noise from On -Site Sources Primary on -site noise sources during project operations would generate noise consistent with general industrial land uses, including HVAC systems, the loading and unloading of trucks, and vehicles entering and leaving the project site. As discussed previously and detailed in the Noise Analysis, the applicable noise limits are 80 dB on the project property and 65 dB at a residential property line. Further, noise caused by motor vehicles is exempted from these limits. Large HVAC equipment typically have sound power ratings of 85 to 90 dB, which is equivalent to sound pressure levels of 53 to 58 dBA at a distance of 50 feet? Assuming there would be 4 large units, the combined noise level of 4 units, each with a noise level of 58 dBA at 50 feet, would be 64 dBA at 50 feet. Thus, the noise level on the property from HVAC units would be less than 80 dBA and the noise level at The noise levels described above and in most of this section are sound pressure levels. However, sound power is often used to describe stationary noise sources. Sound power describes the total sound energy emitted by a source, also in decibels; sound power does not change with distance. anwolern4nRk3MQI0m0minai 6tudvsPTNVuw Raalc Revised Initial study-060617.datx 3-60 Initial Study E1—Pg 126 the nearest residence, approximately 0.5 mile away, would be less than 65 dBA. The primary noise source from loading and unloading and typical warehouse operations would be from the use of forklifts. Noise from the operation of forklifts range from 64 dBA to 73 dBA. Therefore, noise levels from loading and unloading and typical warehouse operations would not be anticipated to exceed 65 dBA Leq at 50 feet, and, when added to HVAC noise, would be less than 75 dBA Leq on site and less than 65 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not include any uses that would exceed the Industrial Noise Limits (refer to Table 2 of Appendix 1). Therefore, noise levels from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. 12d. Less Than Significant Impact. There would be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to project construction. As stated previously, noise associated with construction is exempt from the provisions of Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the Development Code if noise levels do not occur outside of the established regulations. Construction activities for the proposed project would be limited to the hours specified in the City Development Code (refer to RR 12-1). As discussed below, the anticipated construction noise levels at nearby commercial and industrial uses would not exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA. Construction noise is related primarily to the use of heavy equipment. Typical maximum noise levels generated by representative pieces of construction equipment are listed in Table 6 of the Noise Analysis. Each phase of construction has a different equipment mix depending on the work to be accomplished during that phase. Each phase also has its own noise characteristics; some would have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have high -impact noise levels. The activities that typically cause the highest noise levels are pile driving and blasting. As noted above, neither pile driving nor blasting would be required for the proposed project. The Leq of each phase is determined by combining the Leq contributions from each piece of equipment used in that phase. Typical mobile heavy construction equipment would include bulldozers, excavators, dump trucks, front-end loaders, graders, and industrial/concrete saws. Stationary equipment would include generators. The project site is approximately 26.63 acres-1,280 feet in the north -south direction and 920 feet in the east -west direction at its narrowest point. Assuming that 6 pieces of construction equipment (i.e., 2 dozers, 2 backhoes/loaders, 2 dump trucks) are operating simultaneously, the average noise levels at the project boundary during site preparation would be approximately 68.8 dBA Leq. Therefore, average construction noise at commercial and industrial uses adjacent to the project site would not exceed the Development Code limit of 70 dBA. Mobile equipment used for grading and construction activities would be similar to those used during site preparation; therefore, these activities would also not exceed 70 dBA. In addition, an existing 6-foot-high wall along the northern site boundary would reduce construction noise levels at the commercial facilities north of the project site. The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Off -Site Construction Noise Temporary noise would be generated on local roadways by workers commuting to and from the job site, construction material deliveries, and the transport of materials generated during site clearing that would not be reused on the site. Given that the site is generally flat, it is not anticipated that soil export or import to or from the project site would be required. The additional trips per hour associated with construction activities would not R.1Pgdcta1IAR\3IAR010IOOIInMaI Sand T Nrow Route ReAsed In dial SNtly-0606IT. doex 3-61 El—Pg 127 IPT Arrow Route DC Project double traffic volumes on local roadways and would result in a negligible noise increase. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 12e. No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the LA/Ontario International Airport, located approximately four miles southwest of the proposed project. According to the ONT ALUCP, adopted in April 2011, the project site is located on the edge of the Airport Influence Area and outside of the Airport's noise impact zones (Ontario 2011). The ONT ALUCP states that Rancho Cucamonga is not an affected jurisdiction for noise. There would be no impact. 12f. No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest privately owned airport to the proposed project is the Cable Airport, located approximately 8.4 miles west of the project site. At this distance, the project site would not experience excessive noise levels from use of the Cable Airport. There would be no impact. Mitigation Measures MM NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit plans and/or specifications to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department demonstrating that vibratory rollers would not be used within 15 feet of an off -site structure and that large bulldozers or similar heavy equipment would not be used within 8 feet of an off -site building. Vibratory rollers operated in the static mode will be allowed. R Nro1erts1ARUTAR010R0011uda1 SWVIPTAmuw Route Revised Initial sway-064917.d— E1—Pg 128 IPT Anow Route DC Protect Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and El El® ❑ businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? . b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the El El construction of replacement housinq elsewhere? Explanation of Checklist Answers 13a. Less Than Significant Impact. The City's current population (2016) is estimated at 165,269 persons (U.S. Census Bureau 2016). SCAG projections estimate the population of the City will grow to 204,300 persons by the year 2040 (SCAG 2016). It is noted that these projections are partly based on the City's existing land use designations; because the project would be consistent with the current General Plan designation of General Industrial (discussed in detail in Response 10b), it is assumed that SCAG projections assume development of the site with general industrial uses such as the proposed project. The proposed project does not involve the development of residential uses and would not directly increase the population in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The extent to which the new jobs created by a project are filled by existing residents is a factor that tends to reduce the growth -inducing effect of a project. The proposed project would create short-term jobs during the construction phase. These short-term positions would likely be filled by workers who, for the most part, would already reside in the local area; therefore, construction of the proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in population within the project area. The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of up to 611,573 sf of warehouse/distribution center uses. Using the average employment generation factor for General Industrial areas, as used in the 2010 General Plan for estimating buildout of the City (Tables LU-17 and LU-18 of the 2010 General Plan), at 1,471 square feet per employee, approximately 416 jobs could be generated by the proposed project. Employment generation estimated for the proposed project (416 employees) represents approximately 1.4 percent of the total employment (29,220 employees) to be generated by General Industrial areas in the City. It is anticipated that these new warehouse positions would be filled by workers who would already reside in the local area. Operation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial permanent population increase within the City as compared to the population projection of 204,300 persons by the year 2040 (SCAG 2016). Additionally, the proposed project would not extend roadways or utilities in a manner that would indirectly induce substantial growth in the immediate vicinity of the project site or elsewhere. Rather, the project would introduce development in an area that is currently R.'P,ale<b'AR'9NZOIOIOPInitiel SNdViPT Nrow Route Revised TnNal SNtly-060617.doe, 3-63 Initial Study E1—Pg 129 surrounded by urban development and would connect to existing infrastructure systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth and no mitigation is required. 13b-13c. No Impact. The proposed project site is currently vacant and has been historically used for agricultural uses. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the removal of existing housing, would not require the construction of replacement housing, and would not displace any existing residents. The proposed project involves the construction of industrial warehouse uses and does not include a residential component. Since no relocation of existing residents or construction of replacement housing would result from implementing the proposed project, no impacts would occur. RAPnjecn11HRQdAR01010011nitial SWdydPT Mow Rohe RevIded lnOial SNdy-060617.doc[ 3-64 Initial Study E1—Pg 130 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Would the a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation of Checklist Answers 14a. Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services in the City of Rancho Cucamonga are provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). The RCFPD employs approximately 120 full- and part-time employees and provides fire protection and emergency medical response services to approximately 50 square miles in and around the City limits (RCFPD 2016). Fire, rescue, emergency medical service (EMS), and hazardous materials incidents are coordinated through an on -duty Battalion Chief supervising cross -trained firefighter/paramedics and firefighter/emergency medical technicians (EMITS) responding from seven fire stations. It is anticipated that Fire Station No. 174 (11297 Jersey Boulevard), which is located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the project site, would provide the first response to the project site. Fire Station No. 174 houses Medic Engine 174 and Ladder Truck Compact 174. Increased demands for fire protection and services result from increases in the permanent population but can also be related to the size, height, and type of land uses. The proposed project involves the development of up to 611,573 sf of nonresidential uses, which would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services and their associated demand on fire protection and emergency service apparatus, equipment, and personnel beyond existing levels. Based on the number and type of proposed uses, the proposed project would not increase the typical number and range of service calls by the RCFPD, including structural fires; emergency medical and rescue services; hazardous materials inspections and response; and community safety, awareness, and outreach activities. As noted in Section 4.14, Public Services, of the 2010 General Plan EIR, buildout of the 2010 General Plan would not cause fire staffing, facilities, or equipment to operate at a deficient level of service nor would it require the construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities. Because the proposed project is consistent with the land use plan as analyzed in the 2010 General Plan EIR, it can be concluded that the proposed project RdPI ji tlN'IAR01AR01010011.,0aJ SWdpIPT Maw RW. Reviled Initial SUIO60617.d.. El—Pg 131 IPT Arrow Route DC Project would not result in a significant impact related to fire protection services. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code and the RCFPD Fire Protection Standards and Guidance Documents, regarding fire prevention and suppression measures, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, access, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems, among other measures, which would ensure that impacts to fire protection services resulting from development of the proposed project are less than significant. 14b. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department (SBSD) for law enforcement services in the City, including the project site, and the SBSD's operations within the City are referred to as the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department (RCPD). The Rancho Cucamonga Police Station is located at 10510 Civic Center Drive, approximately 2.2 miles west of the project site, and is a full -service police station. The RCPD provides patrol services, in addition to a full - service traffic division, which includes motor units, a Major Accident Investigation Team (MATT), a commercial enforcement unit, and a parking enforcement unit. A Multiple Enforcement Team (MET), including a Bicycle Enforcement Team (BET), provides a well- rounded, community -based policing unit. In addition, the station also provides four School Resource Officers (SROs) who service each of the City's high schools, middle schools and elementary schools; a crime prevention unit; a crime analysis unit; and a detective division (SBCSD 2016). As of May 2015, there were 174 RCPD personnel, including 133 sworn peace officers (RCPD 2016). As of 2016, the City's population was estimated at 165,269 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2016). With this existing population, the ratio of Deputy Sheriffs to residents is approximately 1 officer for every 950 residents. In addition to the police station identified above, there is also a police substation located within a regional commercial center, Victoria Gardens Lifestyle Center (Victoria Gardens), which is located approximately 0.7 mile north of the project site. The current staffing levels at the Victoria Gardens retail center include 1 Sergeant, 1 Corporal, 12 Deputy Sheriffs, 2 Office Specialists, and 1 Sheriffs Service Specialist (Crime Prevention Officer). Plans have also been developed for the 15,600-sf North End Substation, which will be located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Grizzly Drive. In addition, a California Highway Patrol station is located approximately 0.2 mile east of the project site at 9530 Pittsburgh Avenue (SBCSD 2016). The RCPD does not have required response times; however, the RCPD has maintained a historical response time average of less than five minutes for emergency and less than eight minutes for Priority 1 calls. In 2014, the average response time for these types of calls was 4 minutes, 20 seconds. The actual response times vary depending on the location of the deployed officers at the time of dispatch (SBCSD 2016). The proposed project would generate new employment opportunities; however, the new jobs that would be created by the proposed projectwould not induce substantial population growth because most of the new jobs would likely be filled by residents of the City and surrounding area. Although the proposed project would not substantially increase the population in the City, it would increase demand for police protection services. Typical operational police protection services involved with industrial warehouse uses include after-hours patrol. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded police protection facilities. However, the proposed project would be designed and operated per applicable standards required by the City and the RCPD for new development in regards to public safety; this includes project compliance with Chapter 3.64, Police Impact Fee, of R:\Pmle,bMA 3IPA0101000nitiel StudyMPT know Route Revised Initial SNdy,060617.doe5 .3-66 Initial El—Pg 132 IPT Arrow Route DC Proiect the City's Municipal Code, which requires a City Police Impact Fee that funds new facilities, vehicles, and equipment. Additionally, the project would include uniform site lighting to increase security throughout the pedestrian and automobile parking areas as well as in the secured truck yards. Therefore, no significant impacts to the environment related to the construction of police protection facilities would result with implementation of the project and no mitigation is required. 14c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Cucamonga School District (CSD) for elementary and middle schools and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD) for secondary public education. The proposed project would not directly generate students, as the project does not involve the development of residential land uses. Therefore, no direct impact on school services and facilities would occur. Additionally, as previously discussed in Response 13a of this IS, it is expected that the new jobs that would be created by the proposed project would largely be filled by residents of the City and surrounding area. However, appropriate developer impact fees, as required by State law, shall be assessed and paid to the school district - pursuant to Section 65995(b) of the California Government Code. The CSD currently requires the payment of $0.18 per sf of industrial/warehouse/manufacturing development (CSD 2016). The CJUHSD requires the payment of $1.29 per sf of residential development and $0.17 per sf of commercial development (CJUHSD 2015a,b). Impacts to schools would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 14d. No Impact. The City's Community Services Department provides community services and recreational opportunities and is responsible for the planning, development, and maintenance of the City's parks and recreational facilities. The project applicant does not propose new residential uses and the proposed project would not result in a direct population increase within the City. As previously discussed, it is expected that the new jobs that would be created by the proposed project would be filled by residents of the City and the surrounding area. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 14e. No Impact. The City's Library Services Department provides library services at two libraries: the Rancho Cucamonga Library (7368 Archibald Avenue) and the Paul A. Biane Library (12505 Cultural Center Drive). The closest library to the project site is the Paul A. Biane Library, located approximately 0.7 mile north of the proposed project site. The proposed project would not directly increase the demand for library or other public services as no new residential uses would be developed and there would be no increase in the population. As previously discussed, it is expected that the new jobs that would be created by the proposed project would largely be filled by residents of the City and the surrounding area; therefore, there would be no additional demand for library services and the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded library facilities. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. R±PIa!-4PRIMR010ID.11niel SNdrIPT kr—RWu ReviseE h4.1 S.d,-060617.d.q Initial E1—Pg 133 IPTAffow Route DC Project Less Than 15. RECREATION Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact the a) 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the El El El 0 environment? Explanation of Checklist Answers 15a-15b. No Impact. As stated previously, the proposed project involves the development of up to 611,573 sf of high -cube warehouse/distribution center uses and does not include the development of any recreational facilities. The proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or result in or accelerate the physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities. This is because the proposed project does not involve the development of residential uses and the proposed industrial uses would not increase the use of such facilities. As previously discussed in Response 13a of this IS, it is expected that the new jobs that would be created by the proposed project would be largely filled by residents of the City and surrounding area. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities and no environmental impacts would result. No mitigation is required. RT,rojecMA AAR01010011,i0.151udy11PTM.w Ro.Ie ReW.ed Mn TSU,060617.don 3-68 Initial Study E1—Pg 134 IPT Arrow Route DC Project 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- ❑ ® El El travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ❑ ® ❑ ❑ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results ❑ ❑ ❑ EK in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or El Elotherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Unless otherwise noted, the information presented in this section is based on information provided in the Arrow Route 28 Acre Development Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. in October 2016 for the proposed project (Urban Crossroads 2016d) and included as Appendix J. Project Design Features PDF TRAF-1 The following site access improvements shall be constructed as part of the project, in conjunction with project construction: • Driveway 1 at Arrow Route. Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Southbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One left -turn lane (storage to be accommodated within existing two-way left -turn lane) and one through lane. o Westbound approach: One through lane and one shared through -right turn lane. R 1Pmlech'11R'01AR010146!Ind,al SNdy IPT Porow Route ReWed lndial SUd 060517.doa 3-69 E1—Pg 135 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Driveway 2 at Arrow Route. Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Southbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One left -turn lane (storage to be accommodated within existing two-way left -turn lane) and one through lane. o Westbound approach: One through lane and one shared through -right turn lane. Driveway 3/Private Driveway. Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: One shared left -through lane. o Southbound approach: One shared through -right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. Driveway 4/Private Driveway. Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: One shared left -through lane. o Southbound approach: One shared through -right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. • Private Driveway/Juneberry Drive/Arrow Route. Align the private driveway with the existing Juneberry Drive at Arrow Route intersection and modify the existing traffic signal phasing on the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate permissive left turns. Also maintain the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane and shared through - right turn lane. o Southbound approach: Keep existing shared through -left turn lane and defacto right turn. o Eastbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane, through lane, and defacto right turn. Add a second through lane. o Westbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane, through lane, and defacto right turn. Add a second through lane. PDF TRAF-2 The following site -adjacent roadway improvements along Arrow Route shall be constructed as part of the project: • Construct Arrow Route at its ultimate half -section width as a Major Arterial (100-foot right-of-way) between the project's western and eastern boundaries. Improvements along the project's frontage (north side of Arrow Route) would be those required by final conditions of approval for the proposed project and applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. Regulatory Requirement RR TRAF-1 In accordance with Chapter 3.28, City -Wide System Fees for Transportation Development, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall pay rs:wwoiechVARMnnaiomaveivai sudyuvr know Route Rewaea imcai swey.oeasn.dc 3-70 Initial Study E1—Pg 136 _ IPT Arrow Route DC Project applicable Citywide transportation development impact fees to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department. These impact fees, along with the use of State and federal funds, is expected to implement various freeway, highway, and roadway projects in and near Rancho Cucamonga. Explanation of Checklist Answers 16a-b. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Study Area According to the TIA, 7 study area intersection locations shown on Exhibit 15 and listed in Table 11 were analyzed based on coordination with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and because the proposed project would contribute to 50 or more peak hour trips to these intersections. Of these seven intersections, three intersections are existing and four intersections are future planned intersections at project driveways. Additionally, the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Arrow Route is a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) intersection. Exhibit 16 identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls. TABLE 11 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS Intersection Location Jurisdictiori 1 Rochester Ave/Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga 2 Driveway 1/Arrow Route -Future Intersection Rancho Cucamonga 3 Driveway 2/Arrow Route -Future Intersection Rancho Cucamonga 4 Private Driveway/Driveway 3—Future Intersection Rancho Cucamonga 5 Private Driveway/Driveway 4—Future Intersection Rancho Cucamonga 6 1 Private Driveway/Juneberry Dr/Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga 7 1 Etiwanda Ave/Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga Level of Service Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS), which ranges from LOS A, representing completely free -flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop -and -go conditions. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. As further described in the TIA, the HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control, including signalized and unsignalized intersections, as discussed in the TIA. Per the 2010 General Plan Mobility Element, the City of Rancho Cucamonga allows LOS D to be used as the maximum acceptable threshold for study area intersections and roadways. Per the San Bernardino County CMP, the acceptable LOS for CMP intersections is LOS E or better. The intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Arrow Route is a CMP intersection. RAP rejects' SmdVIPT arrow Rome Revead Irdrir smd,-VSI Mass 3-71 Initial Study El-Pg 137 m 5 �41 �1 .�I A OF :.�7 i� J Jet r 1i IR °• - 1- _ �l ;fir;' �:r' x .•a1v�. 1 { '~r A fro r \1 r t Vs t ,� ,r �, LEGEND: ., . is > y • ' . O 1 •EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION *. 0 • FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION J L:9 • CMP INTERSECTION Source: Urban Crossroads 2016 Traffic Study Area Intersection Map Exhibit 15 IPT Arrow Route DC Project m 'V a 110110f2016 LEWr R^PgepMIA IAROt0i00\Grpph¢SWgse'E 15 Tmfi<SWtlykea_2016I010. pA Rochester Av. & Z Dwy.I & 3 Dwy. 2 & 4 Dwy.3 & 5 Dwy.4 & 6 Juneberry Dr. & 7 Etlwende Av. & Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. y ; r _ Future Future Future Future— Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection J�t_ _ i i. DEF_._t D RTO- t I Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls IPTT Arrow Route DC Project (10110R016 LEW) Source: Urban Crossroads 2016 Exhibit 16 IPT Anow Route DC Project Existing Conditions The study area roadways are Arrow Route, Rochester Avenue, and Etiwanda Avenue; these roadways are classified as a Major Arterial with 100-foot right-of-way in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Community Mobility Element (refer to Exhibit 3-2 of the TIA). The roadways are also designated as truck routes in the City or Rancho Cucamonga (refer to Exhibit 3-4 of the TIA). Manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the study area intersections in August 2016. Calculated existing ADT volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area (based on passenger car equivalent [PCEj) are shown on Exhibit 17 as well as existing AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes. Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 12, which indicates that the existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS during the peak hours, with the exception of the following intersections. Consistent with Table 12, a summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Existing Conditions are shown on Exhibit 18. • Rochester Avenue/Arrow Route—LOS E (PM peak) Juneberry Drive/Arrow Route—LOS F (AM and PM peak) R:Wmjed,IIARQIPR0101001Wfi.1St. tly\IPT Mow R,W R-1-d InIt] .16Wtly-060617.d.[. El—Pg 140 R r c S+ d I � SITE �- 00 J' 10(10)-AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES r i. '.1 10.0 m VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) 10.0 ACTUAL (COUNT -BASED) VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) a! I P Yt Rochester Av. 6 Z Dwy.I r 3 Dwy, 2 6 4 Dwy. 3 & 5 Dwy.4 & 6 Juneberry Dr. & 7 Etlwanda Av. & Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. Arrow Rte. nm 1 opml m t--74(196) I"(3) n y e �_L-119(174) N Q'o I-903(377) Future Future Future Future o jZ� a m .-1256(604) N M � j--668(302) .1 I_jr164(83) Intersectlon Intersection Intersection Intersectlon J_4 I_j F-46(3) J j Ljf-1sz(1ot) 106(419)Dll t i _ 3(q)-1� I t (• 99(365)J i� }-(•'- 254(905)--1 mo 356(1297)— Ro_F 221(596)-. m6co 49(47)-1 m 11(6)-iI m c ES136(332)—( ry NI m v. m mn Existing (2016) Traffic Volumes (In PCE) IPT Arrow Route DC Project N �E l LV 1V Exhibit 17 m ~�•^` ._�'._w,s•�r — .i%i1, •' , ... �u„,Y ✓� .f •r - ,t,i _'. t ;^/41 ,t ram+ iii`_ .i�'r•'JO RM�"'� �.,`.t / 1 t t I � all ��. - N..�.. •... _ ___... -. - .�.. >'tr ,rt�._._. • ,, rower t , � � t r�^_±.. .. x -was LEGEND: , • AM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS art` M' .� y .r - -' J.`. -AM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS • PM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS PM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS NA • NOT AN ANALYSIS LOCATION FOR THIS SCENARIO Source: Urban Crossroads 2016 Existing (2016) Summary of LOS Exhibit 18 IPT Arrow Route DC Project (10I102016 LEW)RWgettsllARf3UROlOt00lCxapNcsllSlFx18 LOS_Summsry_20161010.pCf IPT Arrow Route DC Project TABLE 12 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2016) CONDITIONS :. ry'- ;.-re...ti - - 'IntersectionA'pproach•Lanes° _ - - - Levei:ofs :Northbound:+ .Southbound Eastbound .Westbound Traffi6 Delay jsecs)b Service' Acceptable. No Jn'tcr§ection. Control <L'OS, ''L T. ,R, :•L ' T -R i T R L T R AM' PM' AMi"' P,M 1- Rochester Ave/Arrow Rte TS 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 2. 2 1 0 33.8 61.7 C E D 2 Driveway 1/Arrow Rte Future Intersection 3 Driveway 2/Arrow Rte Future Intersection 4 Private Driveway/Driveway 3 Future Intersection 5 Private Driveway/Driveway 4 Future Intersection 6 Juneberry Dr/Arrow Rte TS 1 1 0 0 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 >200.00 >200.00 F F D 7 Etiwanda Ave/Arrow Rte TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1> 2 1 1> 2 2 0 34.2 42.2 C D E L: left; T: through; R: right; secs: seconds; LOS: level of service; TS: Traffic Signal; d: defacto right -turn lane. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e.. unacceptable LOS). When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unslriped. To function as a right -turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections wth a traffic signal. LOS was calculated using Synchro (Version 9.1). 11 RVrofec%s 13U1Ro101WWW 9udyWT N wR ute ReWsed IWOM SWd 60617A=x IPTArrow Route DC Project Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation is based on forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the proposed project. Trip generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) Trip Generation Manual, 9fh Edition (2012) for high -cube warehouses (ITE Land Use Code 152) have been used. The ITE's Trip Generation Manual includes data regarding the types of vehicles that are generated (passenger cars and trucks) but provides no guidance on vehicle mix (different sizes of trucks). Data regarding the vehicle mix was obtained from a separate report —the City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study for the high -cube warehousing and warehousing uses proposed as part of the Project. As directed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and consistent with standard traffic engineering practice in Southern California, PCE factors8 have been applied due to the expected heavy truck component for the proposed project. Table 13 presents the trip generation summary in PCE. Table 14 presents the trip generation summary in actual vehicles. As shown on Table 13, the proposed development is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 1,357 PCE net trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 88 AM PCE peak hour trips and 97 PM PCE peak hour trips. In comparison, Table 14 shows that the proposed development is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 1,036 net trip - ends per day (actual vehicles) on a typical weekday with 68 AM peak hour trips and 74 PM peak hour trips. e Consistent with the values recommended by the San Bernardino County CMP and accepted factors in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to large 2-axle trucks, a factor of 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and a factor of 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks. R.Pr*e VAMIAR01010011nital SNdyMPT krwRaWe Rarbed Initial SNdp660611.doa El —log 144 IPT Arrow Route DC Proiect TABLE 13 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (IN PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENT) Land Use Units ITE LU Code AM Peak Hour ' , 'P.M Peak Hour ` pally In Out ,' Total ' Iri,'' Out Total • Project Trip Generation Rates? ` High -Cube Warehouse b,c TSF 152 0.076 0.034 0.110 0.037 0.083 0.120 1.680 Passenger Cars 0.060 0.027 0.088 0.030 0.066 0.095 1.337 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.004 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.087 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.007 0.003 0.010 0.003 0.008 0.011 0.156 4-Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.028 0.013 0.041 0.014 0.031 0.044 0.621 Land Use Quantity I Units AM Peak Hour PM -Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out I Total Passenger Car Equivalent Trip Generation Summary High -Cube Warehouse 616.560 TSF Passenger Cars: 37 17 54 18 41 59 824 Truck Trips: 2-axle: 2 1 3 1 3 4 54 3-axle: 4 2 6 2 5 7 96 4+-axle: 17 8 25 8 19 27 383 :\-el Truck Trips (PCE) 23 11 34 11 27 38 533 Total Net Trips (PCE)" 60 28 88 29 68 97 1,357 ITE: Institute of Transportation Engineers; LU:. Land Use; TSF: thousand square feet; PCE: passenger car equivalent. Totals may not add due to rounding. ° Trip generation source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 9" Edition (2012). n Vehicle mix source: Total truck percentage source from ITE Trip Generation Manual. Truck mix (by axle type) source from City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study. PCE rates are per SANBAG as PCE factors are not readily available. They are 1.5 for 2-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and 3.0 for 4+- axle trucks. a Total Net Trips (PCE) = Passenger Cars + Net Truck Trips (PCE). Source: Urban Crossroads 2016d. aaPmie«��aa.muaioiommiee�smeyiPr a„°�.a°we a..,,,minnmismey-ososizmcz 3-75 Initial Study E1-Pg 145 IPT Arrow Route DC Project TABLE 14 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (IN ACTUAL VEHICLES) ,Land Use' Units, "ITE LU A6dej ..: , ,AM Peak Hour'_,, 'r. ,".• ,PM,P@ak�Hour ,' Daily' Total In,. Out':: Total., Project Trip Generation"Ratesa High -Cube Warehouseb TSF 152 0.076 0.034 0.110 0.037 0.083 0.120 1.680 Passenger Cars 0.060 0.027 0.088 0.030 0.066 0.095 1.337 2-Axle Trucks 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.058 3-Axle Trucks 0.004 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.078 4-Axle+Trucks 0.009 0.004 0.014 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.207 Land Use Q Units -AM Pea" Hour 4 "PM Peak 1­166ir _..... Daily' In :Out; Total Ii .Out ,Total Passenger; Car Equivalent (PCE) Trip 'Generatlon Summary' - High -Cube Warehouse 616.560 TSF Passenger Cars: 37 17 54 18 41fi74 824 Truck Trips: 2-axle: 2 1 2 1 2 36 3-axle: 2 1 3 1 2 48 4+-axle: 6 3 8 3 6128 - Net Truck Trips (Actual Trucks) 10 4 14 5 10 212 Total Net Trips (Actual Vehicles)° 47 21 68 23 511,036 ITE: Institute of Transportation Engineers; LU: land use; TSF: thousand square feet; PCE: passenger car equivalent. Totals may not add due to rounding. Trip generation source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 9" Edition (2012). b Vehicle mix source: Total truck percentage source from ITE Trip Generation Manual. Truck mix (by axle type) source from City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study. Total Net Trips (Actual Vehicles) = Passenger Cars + Net Truck Trips (Actual Trucks). Source: Urban Crossroads 2016d. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes that will be utilized by project traffic. The trip distribution has been manually derived based on the location of the existing uses in the area likely to be served by the project. Exhibit 19 illustrates the passenger car trip distribution patterns for the project. Exhibit 20 illustrates the trip distribution patterns for trucks. The same trip distribution patterns are utilized for Existing Plus Project, Opening Year Cumulative, and Horizon Year traffic conditions as the study area roadway network is similar for both. Based on the identified project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, project ADT, AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-3 of the TIA included in Appendix J. Traffic Analysis Assumptions Traffic Analysis Scenarios Potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions, which are further described in the TIA included in Appendix J: Existing Plus Project (E+P) Conditions • Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Without Project Conditions • Opening Year Cumulative (2018) With Project Conditions RAPreiecbuARQ1AR0101 oMInWal swdi crow Rowe Revised Imrei smdyaeaen.dnx 3-76 Initial Study E1-Pg 146 41 1 125 V. K O 15 50 5T 'LOISIML LEGEND: 10 -PERCENT TOIFROM PROJECT SOUrMUfaan Crossroads 2011 Project (Passenger Car) Trip Distribution Exhibit 19 IPTArrow Route DC Project 110,102016 LEM R &`,q�UAR0LAR0101WGrdph=IlStFxl9 PaSSwi,erCarTjipDSJtlbloll LIU16101U,W0 Ir 1 4VYf�y'RE7�."y'wlr YC d All, 115 ��: - •- /� s ..I .V . r - }aI _ WEN rl! 70 ( r saG� 44 7-7... A LEGEND. ' ifu3.J* _ x� - _= 10 -PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT Source: Urban Crossroads 2016 Project (Truck) Trip Distribution Exhibit 20 IPT Arrow Route DC Project N Nt s O01102016 LEWr R1WolecisNMUlAR010100\Graphirstl5lEx20 TruckTripOislnOUFen_20161010,pCf IPTArrow Route DC Project • Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions • Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions Thresholds of Significance For purposes of analyzing CEQA impacts, a significant impact would occur if • the addition of project -generated trips reduces the peak hour LOS of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, C, or D) to deficient operation (LOS E or F) or • the proposed project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips to an intersection that is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions For Existing Plus Project traffic conditions, an analysis of existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed Project (as identified in Table 13) is provided. The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for the Existing Plus Project conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 18, with the exception of project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the project to provide site access (refer to Project Design Features (PDFs) TRAF-1 and TRAF-2). These PDFs are assumed to be in place for the analysis of Existing Plus Project conditions. As shown in Table 15 and Exhibit 21, the study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours with the exception of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route as well as Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route (a CMP intersection). As identified above, these intersections also operate at an unacceptable LOS under Existing Conditions. Although the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour, the project is anticipated to contribute less than 50 peak hour trips (i.e., 41 PM peak hour trips). Therefore, the project's impact to the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route is less than significant and no mitigation is required. The project would improve the intersection of Juneberry Drive and Arrow Route Highway to facilitate site access by realigning the existing driveway and modifying the northbound and southbound left turn treatment (i.e., permissive left -turn phasing from the current split phasing). RAProjecesURt)IAR0101MOW SNdv4PT Mow Route Revised In ItaI SWdp000511.don El—Pg 149 rr 0 t' ,. - ,� � �j`.• ;�;• fir.. '�:� I .4 .. MP'A ELM _ +... LEGEND: AM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS I AM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS �. �, _•� ,_.�, , g!t„> _ _ s _ ' • PM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS ' • PM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS Source: Urban Crossroads 2016 Existing Plus Project Summary of LOS IPT Arrow Route DC Project M M�E Exhibit 21 00110f'2016 LEWI R9PqnM4 IAR'31AR0101001GraphlmNIS1 x2l E+iswgPkmL0S_20161010.pW IP7Arrow Route DC Project TABLE 15 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Extstirig (2016);.;: E+P Delay°':- Level -of Delay° fi Level3of ` Traffic secs `, ( ) Servlcg (secs), Service Sfgnrficant AM PM I AM' PM PM ; AM PM, No. Intersection Contiolb ' Im'I 60° 1 Rochester Ave/Arrow Rte TS 33.8 F61.7 C E 35.5 62.8 D E Nei 2 Driveway 1/Arrow Rte Css Future Intersection 106 10.7 B B No 3 Driveway 2/Arrow Rte CBS Future Intersection 14.4 10.5 B B No 4 Private Driveway/Driveway 3 CSS Future Intersection 8.3 8.4 A A No 5 Private Driveway/Driveway 4 CSS Future Intersection 8.4 8.4 A A No 6 Juneberry Dr/Arrow Rte TS >200.0 >200.0 F F >200.0 >200.0 F F Yes 7 Etiwanda Ave/Arrow Rte TS 34.2 42.2 C D 35.5 43.6 D D No E+P: Existing Plus Project; secs:. seconds; TS: traffic signal; CSS: cross -street stop. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), overall average intersection delay and level of service (LOS) are shown for intersections with a traffic signal. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. LOS calculated using Synchro (Version 9.1). CSS = Improvement. To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study intersection results in a significant impact, the following thresholds of significance will be utilized: - A significant impact occurs if the addition of project trips causes the peak hour LOS to fall from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS or - A significant impact occurs if the addition of project trips to an intersection that is currently operaling•at an unacceptable LOS and the project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips. d Project contributes less than 50 peak hour trips. As such, the impact is less than significant, with respect to the project's contribution. The projects impact Is not considered significant. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016d. With respect to the intersection of Juneberry Drive and Arrow Route, with implementation of the intersection improvements proposed as part of the project (refer to PDF TRAF-1), the intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS. Table 16 presents the intersection analysis with and without proposed intersection improvements. With implementation of the proposed intersection improvements, the impact is less than significant. TABLE 16 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS Intersection App_iroach Lanese' Deliyb Level of Northbound Sou_thbourid Eastbound Westbound TNoIntersectIon Traffic , (secs) -. 'Service Control L T . R L T : R 'L ' T I R L Y R AM PM AM PM 6 Juneberry Dr/Arrow Rte Without TS 1. 1 0 0 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 >200.0 >200.0 F F Improvements With TS 1 1 0 0 1 d 1 2 0 1 2 1 33.1 27.2 C C Improvements° — L: left T: through; R: right; TS: traffic signal; d: defacto; >: right -turn overlap phasing; 1. improvement. When aright turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right -turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. It Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal ° In addition to the listed lane improvements, permissive phasing on the northbound/seulhbeund approaches is recommended. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016d. R derolecb11AR131AR01010011ni0at SW VIPT krow Route Revised In Mat SWdy-06061]Aoct El—Pg 151 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Traffic Conditions The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 13, with the exception of project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the project, which are also assumed to be in place. Opening Year Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions also assume the driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by other cumulative developments to provide site access will be in place. To account for background traffic, traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects (refer to Exhibit 22), in conjunction with an ambient growth from Existing (2016) Conditions of 4.04 percent (2.00 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually), is included for Opening Year Cumulative traffic conditions, as further described in the TIA included in Appendix J. As shown on Table 17, for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) With and Without Project traffic conditions, study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours, with the exception of the following intersections, which are the same intersection that would operate at an acceptable LOS under the Existing Plus Project traffic condition: • Rochester Avenue/Arrow Route—LOS F (AM and PM peak) • Juneberry Drive/private driveway/Arrow Route—LOS F (AM and PM peak) A summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Opening Year Cumulative Without and With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibits 23 and 24, respectively. Although the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route is forecast to operate at LOS E and F in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, the project is anticipated to contribute less than 50 peak hour trips (i.e., 41 PM peak hour trips). Therefore, the project's impact to the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route is less than significant and no mitigation is required. ROWmjepWU OIAR6161001WYa1Stu MPT M.Ftnte Ft v,a, tlMOM 5Wtly066617.d.a E1—Pg 152 RC27 RC23 RC14 ;RC22 u..:'RC17• RC1 RC18 RC9 RC20,RC21 RC10 RC19 RC25 ' RC26 RC12 RC28 RC13 RC5 RC3 RC11 RC7 RC4 SITE RC15 RC24 RC6RC2 RC16 RC29 i RC8 l/ MF1� - Fn�.r eft h S ar, Bcrr.mdmo,Frvy r z Source: urban Crossroads 201P Cumulative Development Location Map Exhibit 22 IPT Arrow Route DC Project LE:Y P. F. _ -1 i iR. Ui'C: 6rnzh, 1,1:.. _. a^•eDB:e'•, enl 2G,61019od! E1—Pg 153 ♦�. rl R { rl. J S 7t{ '.yam-' j'�l , r ♦ . � iwYY� f I r 4 • [ l Nr N1 Now ntr +�All 1 � + a + yip 5 _ 'is- .y 1 _ r -' LEGEND. • AM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS , • AM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS iRLo 't 1 • PM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS n— -- _ ' • PM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS NA • NOT AN ANALYSIS LOCATION FOR THIS SCENARIO Source: Urban Crossroads 2016 Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Without Project Summary of LOS IPT Arrow Route DC Project r, „ b Exhibit 23 (101102016 LEW( RNrO1BC611ARQM010100tGraphic iSfEa23 Cumulabve2018_20161010,pw ✓' - fill 7 Ald I 91 •�• , 't r ; Opening Year Cumulative (2018) With Project Summary of LOS IPTArrow Route DC Project LEGEND: - AM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS - AM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS - PM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS -PM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS Source: Urban Cmssmads 201L Exhibit 24 110;10�201G LEWI RII4grxlx'.MR31AR0101001Cxaph¢sN51E�La Cumulabvea018LUS N161010.pd1 IPT Anow Route DC Project TABLE 17 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2018) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENT) 2018 Wittiout,P,roject „_, 207$ With�Proj6dt ,� ::,. ' , ,, •�,' •I, ` Level;of , Delay! 'Cevel oft. Traffic - 1Delaya-.' (secs) : 1,, Service (secs). Service :,significant' , . . " AM ,;PM AM' PM AM ' `PM ' : AM, PM' No. Intersection` Control" ` `' linpact7°.", 1 Rochester Ave/ArrowRte TS 56.1 110.3 E F 60.4 112.6 E F Nod 2 Driveway 1/Arrow Rte CSS Future Intersection 22.7 15.8 C B No 3 Driveway 2/Arrow Rte CSs Future Intersection 24.6 17.0 C C No 4 Private Driveway/Driveway 3 CSS Future Intersection 8.3 8.4 A A No 5 Private Driveway/Driveway 4 CSS Future Intersection 8.3 8.4 A A No 6 Juneberry Dr/Arrow Rte TS >200.0 >200.0 F F >200.0 >200.0 F F Yes 7 Etiwanda Ave/Arrow Rte TS 38.9 48.1 D D 41.1 46.5 D D No secs: seconds; TS: traffic signal; CSS: cross -street stop. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), overall average intersection delay and level of service (LOS) are shown for intersections with a traffic signal. For intersections with cross -street slop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. LOS calculated using Synchro (Version 9.1). b CSS = Improvement To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study intersection results in a significant impact, the following thresholds of significance will be utilized: - A significant Impact occurs if the addition of project trips causes the peak hour LOS to fall from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS or - A significant impact occurs if the addition of project trips to an intersection that is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS and the project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips. d Project contributes less than 50 peak hour trips. As such, the impact is less than significant, with respect to the project's contribution. The project's impact is not considered significant. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016d. As shown in Table 17, the intersection of Juneberry Drive and Arrow Route would operate at an unacceptable LOS without implementation of project -related improvements identified in PDF TRAF-1. As shown in Table 18, with implementation of the project improvements identified in PDF TRAF-1, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS, thus ensuring that a significant impact would not occur. RW,oi-MAWI1 01010011KO,I 51 E14PT Anow Rout. R-1-dI ftl SWdy"050517.d.0. E1—Pg 156 IPT Arrow Route DC Project TABLE 18 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2018) CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS Ihtersechon Approacti,Lanes' Delay^ Level'of Northbound South bouhd Easitiound Westbound, -Traffic (secs) Service„ No. ••Intersection Control L T R L t, IR 1L 'T. R.. L, T' R. - AM" PM qM. PM 6 Juneberry Dr/Arrow Rte -Without Project Without TS 1 1 0 0 1 d 1 1 of 1 1 1 >200.0 >200.0 F F Improvements With TS 1 1 0 0 1 of 1 2 0 1 2 1 25.6 27.9 C C Improvements° -With Project Without TS 1 1 0 0 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 >200.0 >200.0 F F Improvements With TS 1 1 0 0 1 d 1 2 0 1 2 1 27.5 29.2 C C Improvements° L: left; T: through; R: right; TS: traffic signal; d: defacto; >: right -turn overlap phasing; 1: improvement. When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unslriped. To function as a right -turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manuaf, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal ` In addition to the listed lane improvements, permissive phasing on the northbound/southbound approaches is recommended. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016d. Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Conditions The Horizon Year traffic conditions were developed using the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM). The future peak hour forecasts were refined using the Horizon Year traffic forecasts, along with existing peak hour traffic count data collected at intersection analysis locations, as further described in the TIA included in Appendix J. As described above for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions, lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for the Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 18. Additionally, project driveways and facilities assumed to be constructed by the project and facilities assumed to be constructed by other cumulative developments to provide site access are assumed to be in place. As shown on Table 19, under the Horizon Year (2040) With and Without Project traffic conditions, the study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours, with the exception of the following intersections: • Rochester Avenue/Arrow Route—LOS F (AM and PM peak) • Juneberry Drive/private driveway/Arrow Route—LOS F (AM and PM peak) • Etiwanda Avenue/Arrow Route—LOS F (PM peak) A summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions, are shown on Exhibits 25 and 26, respectively. Although the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route is forecast to operate at LOS E and F in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, the project is anticipated to contribute less than 50 peak hour trips (i.e., 41 PM peak hour trips). Therefore, the project's impact to the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route is less than significant and no mitigation is required. RARolee61IFRMMO 101GO' InGet Swdy11Pi Mow Route Reviled Ini4ZI SNdy-06C69.docr El—Pg 157 m J r s ral - 4 t h� Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Summary of LOS IPT Arrow Route DC Project yyy} LEGEND: �r , • AM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS ' 4 • AM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS ' • PM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS • PM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS NA • NOT AN ANALYSIS LOCATION FOR THIS SCENARIO Source: Urban Crossroads 2016 p0flW018 LEW7 Exhibit 25 Horizon Year (2040) With Project Summary of LOS IPT Arrow Route DC Project .�f LEGEND: • AM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS • AM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS r • PM PEAK HOUR ACCEPTABLE LOS ' • PM PEAK HOUR DEFICIENT LOS Source: Urban Crossroads 201(, Exhibit 26 i 1U9P:?C1e LFWI R:6'rgxcK'.IAR91ARU1Ut UU�Canylr ��Iti.Fv2L HuevonVex?0.1ULU4 /U�ti1ptU ,vllFW1 1� TABLE 19 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS 2046 Without Project ;, 2040 WIth,Project _ ; °- ,- - ^ ' beia'a. Level'of Delay, f ; ,Level of Traffic I , (secs),- Service; (secs) Service 5igntficant; No.. ''�., Intersection' C_ ontroi_b 'AM .P.M ` AM :PM, ' `AM, t' I, PM °AM ' PM' IImpact76;; 1 Rochester Ave/ArrowRte TS 129.3 186.5 F F 134.6 189.4 F F Nod 2 Driveway 1/Arrow Rte CSS Future Intersection 24.2 18.9 C C No 3 Driveway 2/Arrow Rte CSS Future Intersection 24.4 20.5 C C No 4 Private Driveway/Driveway 3 CSS Future Intersection 8.3 8.4 A A No 5 Private Driveway/Driveway 4 CSS Future Intersection 8.3 8.4 A A No 6 Juneberry Dr/Arrow Rte TS >200.0 >200.0 F F >200.0 >200.0 F F Yes 7 Etiwanda Ave/Arrow Rte TS 57.6 83.7 E F 61.0 85.1 E F Yes secs: seconds; TS: traffic signal; CSS: cross -street stop. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), overall average intersection delay and level of service (LOS) are shown for intersections with a traffic signal. For intersections with cross street slop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. LOS calculated using Synchro (Version 9.1). b CSS = Improvement To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study Intersection results in a significant Impact, the following thresholds of significance will be utilized: -A significant Impact occurs if the addition of project trips causes the peak hour LOS to fall from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS or - A significant impact occurs if the addition of project trips to an intersection that is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS and the project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips. d Project contributes less than 50 peak hour trips. As such, the impact is less than significant, with respect to the project's contribution. The project's impact is not considered significant. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016d. As shown in Table 19, the intersection of Juneberry Drive and Arrow Route would operate at an unacceptable LOS without implementation of project -related improvements identified in PDF TRAF-1. As shown in Table 20, with implementation of improvements at this intersection identified in PDF TRAF-1, the impact would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. The intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route, which is a CMP intersection, would also operate at an unacceptable LOS without and with the project; therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant cumulative impact at this intersection. A second eastbound through lane is required for this intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS (refer to Table 20). This improvement is not currently included in the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) program; therefore, since the impacts identified are cumulative in nature, the Project Applicant would only be responsible for a fair share contribution toward the identified improvements. MM TRAF-1 requires the Project Applicant to contribute its fair share (estimated at 3.5 percent) toward the construction of this improvement. The City shall be responsible for collecting fair share payments from other property owners who impact this intersection, with these payments used to insure that these intersection improvements shall be constructed in the time frame necessary to avoid identified potentially significant cumulative impacts. Additionally, as identified in RR TRAF-1, the Project Applicant shall participate in the funding of off -site improvements through the payment of the City DIF. The City adopted the latest update to their DIF program in April 2010. Fees from new residential, commercial, and industrial development are collected to fund Measure I -compliant regional facilities as well as local facilities. With implementation of MM TRAF-1 and payment of the City's DIF, the project's cumulative traffic impacts under the Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions would be less than significant. R.1PmleebMARUTAR0101001 ..l SNdyVPT kwR.Wt Revi,cd IM1iel SWd,060617.6. 3-82 Initial Study El—Pg 160 IPT Arrow Route DC Proiecl TABLE 20 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS r 16 rsection,Approach Lanes' ;. , .. Delay". Level of Northbound Sodhbound Eastbound Westbound .Traffic (secs_) ,. - Serviie - L T R C T R- L T R L' T W AM PM AM 'PM No. Intersection . Control 6 Juneberry Dr/Arrow Rte -Without Project Without TS 1 1 0 0 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 >200.0 >200.0 F F Improvements With TS 1 1 0 0 1 d 1 2 0 1 2 1 30.3 25.9 c c Improvementsd -With Project Without TS 1 1 0 0 1 of 1 1 d 1 1 1 >200.0 >200.0 F F Improvements With TS 1 1 0 0 1 d 1 2 0 1 2 1 33.1 27.2 c C Improvementsc 7 Etiwanda Ave/Arrow Rte -Without Project Without TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1> 2 1 1> 2 2 0 57.6 83.7 E F Improvements With Improvements TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 2 0 53.1 53.1 D D -With Project Without TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1> 2 1 1> 2 2 0 61.0 85.1 E F Improvements With Improvements TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 2 0 54.8 53.7 1 D D L: left T: through; R: right; TS: traffic signal; d: defaclo; >: right -turn overlap phasing; 1: improvement. when a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right -turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal In addition to the listed lane improvements, permissive phasing on the northbound/southbound approaches is recommended. Source: Urban Crossroads 2016d. 16c. No Impact. The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of an airport and has no components thatwould affect air traffic patterns. The proposed warehouse building could potentially accommodate freight import/export that would include, in part, the use of air travel and, thus, may nominally increase the number of cargo aircraft flights at LA/Ontario International Airport. However, based on the amount of loading and the storage capacity of the proposed warehouse building (591,573 sf of industrial warehouse floor area with 110 loading dock doors), the project is not expected to substantially increase demand for cargo aircraft flights to the extent that air traffic patterns would be altered. Accordingly, the project would not have the potential to affect air traffic patterns and no impacts would occur. 16d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the development of a new warehouse/distribution building at the project site, which would be compatible with existing uses and transportation characteristics of existing uses. Further, truck operations would occur in accordance with Chapter 10.56, Truck Routes and Restrictions, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, including the use of designated truck routes (refer to Exhibit 3-4 of the TIA included in Appendix J. Per the provisions of the Municipal Code, R.Wrolec4'L1RtlIdROtOIDPlnidal SNd,'IPT Mow Route Revised Initial 6wd,060617.dac[ El—Pg 161 FRIO non -designated truck routes would be used only as necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on a city street or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon a city street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a transportation hazard as a result of an incompatible use. Access to the project site would be provided via four driveways: • Driveway 1/Arrow Route (full access for both passenger cars and trucks) • Driveway 2/Arrow Route (full access for passenger cars only) • Private driveway/Driveway 3 (full access for both passenger cars and trucks) • Private driveway/Driveway 4 (full access for trucks only) As part of the development, the project would construct these driveways and improvements on the site -adjacent roadway of Arrow Route in conjunction with the private driveways, north of Arrow Route, to facilitate site access (refer to PDFs TRAF-1 and TRAF-2). Queuing Analysis at the Project Driveways A queuing analysis was conducted as part of the TIA along the site -adjacent roadways of Arrow Route and the private driveway (north of Arrow Route) for Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions to determine the turn pocket lengths necessary to accommodate long- range 951h percentile queues. The analysis was conducted for the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours. According to the TIA, the existing and proposed storage lengths for the turning movements at the project driveways and site adjacent intersection of private driveway/Juneberry Drive and Arrow Route can accommodate the 951h percentile queues. Truck Access and Circulation Due to the typical wide -turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid on the site plan at each applicable project driveway anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers. The truck turning templates prepared for the project are shown on Exhibit 27. The TIA recommends that the northwest corner of Driveway 1 and Arrow Route be modified to provide a 70-foot curb radius and the northeast corner be modified to provide a 60-foot curb radius to accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks (WB-67 truck with a 53-foot trailer). The southwest corner of private driveway and Driveway 3 would be modified to provide a 50-foot curb radius to accommodate the egress of a WB- 67 truck. The southwest corner of Private Driveway and Driveway 4 would be modified to provide a 55-foot curb radius to accommodate the egress of a WB-67 truck. The proposed site improvements for access and circulation would be in place prior to occupancy and would conform with applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga roadway standards. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to a hazard due to a design feature. 16e. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is located along Arrow Route and is not in the vicinity of an established emergency response route. Construction activity would occur on the project site as well as off -site areas along Arrow Route required to accommodate proposed street, driveway, and intersection improvements. Therefore, R:\PmleckVARQ1ARO I010MInihal SWdy IPT Arrow Route Revised lroal Study060617Aon 8-84 El—Pg 162 DWY. I -INBOUND DWY. I.OUTBOUND 3 �p R60' R35' r \ i LEGEND: Truck Access 1PT Arrow Route DC Project DWY4 R55' ` 64 R35' mi ,y Source. Urban Crossroads 2016 Exhibit 27 'I '; 2^_+6 LEW R. P:a10_13 LAR 31ARCI J100 bra;; ,es IS E,:1 _-,. �- . El—Pg163 construction -related traffic may result in temporary congestion along the local circulation system, which could impact vehicle movement or emergency access. Implementation of MM TRAF-2, requiring a Traffic Control Plan detailing detours and temporary traffic control measures, would reduce this impact to less than significant. With respect to project operations, emergency vehicles can access the site through multiple project access locations. In addition, on -site fire access would be required to comply with applicable codes, ordinances, and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code, and would meet the City of Rancho Cucamonga's width and turnaround requirements to provide adequate emergency access. Therefore, with implementation of MM TRAF-2, the project would not significantly interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles along local roadways, and emergency access on site would be sufficient. Potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 16f. No Impact. The proposed project would be located near various alternative transportation modes and routes, including transit stops and pedestrian facilities. As identified on Exhibit 3-5 in the TIA included in Appendix J, which reproduces the Bicycle Plan included in the 2010 General Plan, Rochester Avenue, Arrow Route, and Etiwanda Avenue are classified as Class II (on -road, striped) bike routes in the vicinity of the project site. Etiwanda Avenue is the only roadway striped with Class II bike lanes. Additionally, the project area is currently serviced by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, with bus service along Foothill Boulevard via Route 66. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments, which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. Additionally, the building operator would be required to comply with the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Section Chapter 17.78 of the City's Development Code), which calls for design features, amenities, or programs to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by employees, patrons, and visitors of commercial, industrial, office, and mixed -use developments. These may include, but are not limited to, shower facilities, preferred parking, bicycle storage, and ridesharing or other related programs to reduce vehicle trips in the City. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs related to alternative modes of transportation and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures MM TRAF-1 Prior to issuance of buildings permits, the Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fee (estimated at 3.5 percent) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the following improvement required to mitigate Horizon Year (2040) with project traffic conditions: • Etiwanda Avenue/Arrow Route —Construct a second eastbound through lane. The fair share payment amount shall be established by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department. The timing of implementation of the improvements shall be determined by the City and the improvements, shall be completed by the City in the time frame necessary to avoid identified significant aAP,oie=laUMAR0101Oudnl6al swdwPT allow Poore Revised Initial Stud-0e0e17.doox 3-85 Initial study El—Pg 164 cumulative impacts. The City shall be responsible for collecting the remainder of the fees necessary to complete this improvement. MM TRAF-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval. The Traffic Control Plan shall describe safe detours and provide temporary traffic control during construction activities for the project. To reduce traffic congestion, the Plan shall include, as necessary, appropriate, and practicable, the following: temporary traffic controls (e.g., a flag person) during construction to maintain smooth traffic flow; dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site; scheduling of construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours; and consolidation of truck deliveries. R d`uJedsllART11AR0101001Inend Smdv!IPT Anew Route Revised IMial Study-660617 doaw E1—Pg 165 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Less Than 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code ❑ ❑ ❑ section 5020.1(k)? or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision ❑ ❑ ❑ (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Explanation of Checklist Answers 17a(i)-17a(ii). No Impact. As evaluated in Section 5, Cultural Resources, Checklist Response 5a, there are no historical resources present on the project site or would be impacted directly or indirectly by project implementation. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has provided project notification to Native American tribes that have requested such notification, pursuant to AB 52, and would conduct any consultation requested. No responses were received within the mandated 30-day response time; therefore, the City has fulfilled their obligation pursuant to AB 52. It is noted that a request for consultation was received after the official, deadline from the San Manuel Native American Tribe. The City has attempted to contact the tribe several times; however, no response from the Tribe was received. The project would not result in a change to the General or Specific Plan, therefore, compliance with State Bill (SB) 18 is not required for this project. R Vr.i cbVAR19PR010100V.iOm Swy4PT Anow R.A R.v,aed hkid SU,060517.d-a E1—Pg 166 IPTArrow Route DC Project Less Than 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Less ThanSignificant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ El ® El Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilitiesor expansion of existing ❑ El® Elfacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the El El ® ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficientwater supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected ❑ ❑ ® ❑ demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to El❑ the project's solid waste disposal needs? ® El g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and El El ® related to solid waste? El Explanation of Checklist Answers 18a. Less Than Significant Impact. The CVWD would provide sanitary sewer service to the proposed project. The Santa Ana RWQCB is the applicable RWQCB for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and administers the City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)/NPDES permit. Waste Discharge Requirements are issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB under the provisions of the California Water Code (Division 7, Water Quality, Article 4, Waste Discharge Requirements). These requirements regulate the discharge of wastes that are not made to surface waters but which may impact the region's water quality by affecting underlying groundwater basins. New development within the City would be required to comply with all applicable wastewater discharge requirements of the NPDES program, as enforced by the Santa Ana RWQCB (Santa Ana RWQCB 2016, 2010). Additionally, the project would be subject to all requirements as set forth in Title 5, Sewer Regulations, and Title 6, Nondomestic Wastewater Discharge Regulations, as set forth in the Cucamonga Valley Water District Code (CVWD 2001). Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements and would be less than significant. 18b. Less Than Significant Impact. The CVWD would provide water and wastewater treatment service for the proposed project. The proposed project would involve the installation of on -site water and sewer lines to connect to existing utility infrastructure and R'AProjecNnIARt3IM01010NInit al SludyiIPT Maw Roble Revised Initial Sludy-0Sv9I]aloes E1—Pg 167 no off -site improvements would be required. Final water plans would be designed and infrastructure would be installed in compliance with applicable requirements of the CVWD Municipal Code and City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. A letter of compliance from CVWD would have to be submitted to the City to show compliance with proposed water and sewer infrastructure plans with CVWD requirements. According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), industrial uses within the CVWD service area is projected to require approximately 2,614 acre feet (af) of water per year by 2020. This demand would increase to 2,721 of in 2025 and 2,827 of in both 2030 and 2035 (Civiltech 2016). Based on CaIEEMod defaults, the project would use approximately 142.6 million gallons (437.6 af) of water per year, or 0.4 million gallons per day (mgd). which is within the projected increase for the CVWD service area. Additionally, due to the nature of anticipated project operations, the project is expected to generate a similar amount of wastewater (approximately 1.42 million gallons per year or 0.4 mgd). Because the UWMP is based on growth as anticipated by local planning documents including the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, and because the proposed projectwould be consistent with the land use designation for the project site as identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, it can be concluded that the UWMP has accounted for development of the project site with industrial uses as proposed. According to CVWD, wastewater is collected and transported to Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) wastewater treatment facilities where it is processed into recycled water (CVWD 2017). As detailed in Response 17e, below, wastewater from the CVWD sewer lines serving the City of Rancho Cucamonga is conveyed for treatment at either the IEUA's Regional Plant No. 1 (RP-1) or Regional Plant No. 4 (RP-4). RP-4 has a design capacity of 14 mgd and serves the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana and the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Cucamonga and south of Fontana (IEUA 2016). This increase in wastewater would represent approximately 10 percent of the identified 4 mgd of remaining treatment capacity at RP-4 (Rancho Cucamonga 2015). According to CVWD letter Availability of Water and Sewer Service APN 0229-021-60 Rancho Cucamonga, CA, prepared for the proposed project and included as Appendix K, the existing water and sewer systems and sewage treatment plant capacity would be adequate to serve the proposed project and any necessary installation of facilities required to meet the needs of the project could be accommodated (CVWD 2016). As discussed in Section 2.2, Project Description, the proposed project would also involve the relocation of an existing 8-inch sewer main that currently runs through the project site in a north -south direction. The sewer utilities would be relocated to the western edge of the project site and connect back to the existing 8-inch sewer to the north and south of the project site. It is also noted that potential construction -related environmental impacts from installation of the on -site water and sewer infrastructure are addressed in the respective sections of this IS (e.g., air quality and noise). Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 18c. Less Than Significant Impact. The amount and rate of storm water runoff from the currently undeveloped project site would be altered with the construction of the proposed project. The proposed project would require construction of a new on -site storm water drainage system to accommodate the additional runoff associated with the increase of impervious surfaces within the project site, which would control runoff on -site. Additionally, a WQMP has been prepared for the proposed project which includes BMPs to be implemented during and after construction to minimize and control runoff volumes. Based on the conceptual BMP Plan (refer to Exhibit 9, Conceptual BMP Plan), the proposed project would include the following structural BMPs: Contech underground infiltration system; installation of a curb -opening catch basin bioclean filter; and installation of a grated catch basin bioclean filter. With the construction of on -site drainage improvements and the relocation of the existing 54-inch storm drain as detailed in Section 2.2, Project Description, and illustrated in Exhibit 8 of this IS, storm drain capacity for the proposed R P,.j ..IJAR1 IARam1OV.11.1 SW IIPT A,,.w Rom. Remzce mdmi s,ud¢ozaen.d. 3-89 Initial Study El—Pg 168 project would be adequate. Therefore, impacts related to storm drainage facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 18d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the CVWD service area, which would supply water to the proposed project. According to the 2015 UWMP, the future population of CVWD's service area was based on buildout of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as evaluated in the 2010 General Plan EIR. Based on this information, the projected 2030 and 2035 water demands would be 63,700 of for the City. According to the UWMP, projected CVWD water supply based on anticipated groundwater, purchased and imported water, recycled water, and surface water volumes would total 65,700 of in years 2030 and 2035, which would exceed projected demand (Civiltec 2016). As discussed in Response 17b, above, the project would use approximately 437.6 of of water per year, which is within the projected increase for the CVWD service area. As the proposed project would not exceed the growth anticipated in the 2010 General Plan, the CVWD would continue to meet water demands for the proposed project. The project would comply with all applicable water conservation requirements, including Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, which includes requirements for development of a water budget, landscape design guidelines, soil and grading requirements, and a requirement to use recycled water. Further, according to CVWD, there is an adequate supply of water available to meet the needs of the project, including minimum fire flow (CVWD 2016). Impacts related to water supply would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. CVWD has indicated they plan to meet water use reductions within their service area as mandated by the Governor's Executive Order (in effect through February 28, 2016) through implementation of a Drought Response Plan. The Drought Response Plan includes outreach and communication efforts to ensure CVWD customers understand the water use reduction requirements, as well as tools and resources including rebates, water consultations, landscape surveys, and water leak investigations to aid CVWD customers in conservation efforts. According to the Drought Response Plan, achievement of conservation goals (32 percent reduction in overall potable water usage) will be monitored on a monthly basis. In addition, on May 12, 2015, CVWD declared a Stage 6 Severe Water Emergency pursuant to CVWD's Water Supply Shortage Contingency Plan. A Stage 6 Severe Water Emergency enacts a 35 percent mandatory water use reduction and allows CVWD to specify requirements on the days, frequency and duration of outdoor water use by its customers. 18e. Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater in CVWD sewer lines is conveyed to IEUA regional trunk and interceptor sewers. The IEUA receives over 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater, which is treated in IEUA facilities to produce recycled water. IEUA provides wastewater treatment with domestic and industrial disposal systems and energy production facilities serving approximately 830,000 residents within a 242-square-mile area in San Bernardino County through its water and sewer member agencies (including CVWD) (IEUA 2014). Wastewater from the CVWD sewer lines serving the City of Rancho Cucamonga is conveyed for treatment at either the IEUA's Regional Plant No. 1 (RP-1) or Regional Plant No. 4 (RP-4). RP-4 has a design capacity of 14 mgd and serves the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana and the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Cucamonga and south of Fontana (IEUA 2016). As discussed in Response 17b, above, based on CaIEEMod defaults, the project is expected to generate approximately 1.42 million gallons of wastewater per year. According to CVWD, the existing sewer system and sewage treatment plant capacity would be adequate to serve the proposed project (CVWD 2016). Therefore, a significant impact would not occur. R.!R.oie=�'�aRvi,umai oavo�asi Stud iar x,ow Rowe Revised Initial Stud -0eoanwoc. 3-90 Initial Study E1—Pg 169 IPT Arrow Route DC Project 18f. Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste collection services for the City, including the project site, are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries. Collected wastes are brought to the West Valley Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facility in Fontana, where recyclables are sorted and processed. Solid waste that is not diverted is disposed of at the Burrtec- operated Salton City Landfill, a Class III (i.e., municipal waste) landfill located at 935 West Highway 86 in Salton City. Based on a facility expansion approved by the Imperial County Board of Supervisors in October 2012, the Salton City Landfill has a daily permitted capacity of 6,000 tons per day (tons/day), a remaining capacity of 65,100,000 cy, and an anticipated closure date of December 31, 2038 (CalRecycle 2016a; Castaneda 2015). Approximately 33 programs for waste diversion are implemented in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and are implemented by the City, Burrtec, or other entities. These programs are generally within the following categories: composting, facility recovery, household hazardous waste (HHW), policy incentives, public education, recycling, source reduction, and special waste materials (CalRecycle 2016b). As the project site is currently undeveloped, there would be minimal amounts of solid waste generated due to removal of existing on -site vegetation. Solid waste generation associated with operation of the proposed project is estimated in Table 21. TABLE 21 ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION Vllaste'Genetatlod Solid Waste," " 2008 CIWMD Disposal Employees Disposal (pounds per Dis osal tons. p (tons, Rates ` ,. ,: .. day),year)- 11.5 per employee 419 employees 4,819 879 tons per day Total 879 tons per day CIWMD: Cucamonga Integrated Waste Management District. 'This figure was calculated by multiplying the pounds per day of solid waste by 365 and then dividing by 2,000. Source: Rancho Cucamonga 2010a. As shown in Table 21, approximately 879 tons of solid waste per day would be generated by the project which is within the permitted daily capacity of the Salton City Landfill. Therefore, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with available capacity to accept the anticipated solid waste volume. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 18g. Less Than Significant Impact. Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transport of solid waste. The proposed project would be required to coordinate with Burrtec Waste Industries to develop a collection program for recyclables (e.g., paper, plastics, glass, and aluminum) in accordance with local and State programs, including the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable practices enacted by the City under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and any other applicable local, State, and federal solid waste management regulations. AB 939 requires all Counties to prepare R:\Pmjecb11Ng1]MD1010NInitlel5mEy11Pi Nraw Roue RevlaeE Ini11el5Wtly-D6pfiti.tlocv E1—Pg170 SIN a County Integrated Waste Management Plan. In summary, the proposed project would comply with all regulatory requirements regarding solid waste. Less Than 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Less ThanSignificant With Significant NO Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Does the project: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitatof a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish orwildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range ❑ ® ❑ ❑ of rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a El® El El are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ❑ ® ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly? Explanation of Checklist Answers 19a. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As described in the analysis in Section 3.0, implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitats of fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal; or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures. 19b. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed throughout this document, analyses related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and services systems were prepared taking into account existing development and future anticipated as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and other related planning documents (e.g., 2015 UWMP). The aesthetics analysis takes into account impacts to the surrounding, cumulative study area defined as those areas that have a view of the project site and the noise analysis accounts for surrounding land uses that may be exposed to short- and long-term noise from the project. Additionally, impacts related to agriculture and forest resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and mineral resources were each analyzed to account for potential impacts within the topic -specific cumulative study areas which are generally defined as the project site and immediate surrounding area. Based on these cumulative study areas and as discussed throughout this document, the project would have the potential to impact the environment; however, project -specific mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce these impacts, including cumulative impacts, to a less than significant level. R.Tll, 9 RJIA 01010011niftl S.VIPT A11— ROWe Reviled I.1W ZW1060617.don E1—Pg 171 IPT Aaow Route DC Proiect 19c. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. As described previously in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project would involve the construction of up to 611,573 sf of industrial warehouse/distribution center uses. Implementation would not displace or otherwise significantly impact existing residences. All identified impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level; therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. KA rajecteIM3"01010011n1oal 6WdyOT Nrow Raulo Revised Inllial SNdy060617,docx 3-93 E1—Pg 172 IPT Arrow Route DC Project This page intentionally left blank R'1Prole cm'IAR1]IAA61616Oki note I SNEy'IPTA rtow Route Reviled In AM 6NEy-0606l7.don El—Pg 173 SECTION 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Planning Department Michael Smith ............ Nikki Cavazos............ Peer Review Team (MIG, Inc.) Christopher Brown .... Olivia Chan ............... Cameron Hile ............ Katherine Zamora ..... CONSULTANTS ............................................................................ Senior Planner ........................................................................ Assistant Planner ..............................................Director,of Environmental Services .............................................................................. Senior Analyst ..........................................................................Assistant Analyst ....................................................................................Technician Psomas (Preparation of Initial Study) Christina Andersen ... Jennifer Marks .......... Megan Larum ........... Daria Sarraf............... Ashley McCoy........... James Kurtz ............. William Meade .......... Patrick Maxon .......... David Smith ............... David Hughes ........... Trevor Bristle ............. Lindsay Messett........ Ian Cain ..................... Leah Mori .................. Sheryl Kristal............. Jonathan Zimmer...... ................................................................ Principal-in-Charge .....................................................................Project Manager ...........................................................Environmental Planner ...........................................................Environmental Planner ........................................................... Environmental Analyst ....................... Director, Air Quality and Acoustical Programs ..................................................................... Noise Specialist ..................................................Director, Cultural Resources ................................ I ............................. Senior Archaeologist ................................................................................... Arbo rist ................................................................................... Arbo rist ...................................................................... Senior Biologist .................................................................................. Botanist ..................................................................... Technical Editor ..................................................................... Word Processor ................................................................ Graphics Specialist Huitt-Zollars, Inc. (Preliminary Hydrology Report) David White, P.E.... NorCal Engineering (Geotechnical Engineering Investigation) KeithD. Tucker........................................................................................ ScottD. Spensiero................................................................................... RPS Iris Environmental (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) Kristin de Soto, P.E... Spencer Jackson ...... ...... Project Engineer ....... Project Engineer ........Project Manager ...................... Manager .... Principal Consultant R\PmjectOW1IARo141GpUrv6xl SwdylIPT Arow Rowe Revised inmai smaraeuen.dona 4-1 Initial Study E1—Pg 174 IPTArrow Route DC Project Urban Crossroads (Traffic, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk Assessment) AricEvatt, PTP................................................................................................................. President HaseebQureshi................................................................................................... Senior Associate Charlene So, PE.......................................................................... Senior Transportation Engineer Brandon Alvarado....................................................................... Assistant Transportation Analyst RNmjecb9AR91ARJIUI OCUU SWq'IPT Mow Rome R-1-d IOW.Wd, 050517.0a E1—Pg 175 IPT Arrow Route DC Project SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Air Resource Board (ARB). 2009 (September 24). Clean Car Standards - Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Sacramento, CA: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccros/ccros.htm. 2006. Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. Sacramento, CA: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016 (October 7, access date). Bay Area Air Quality Management District: A Healthy Breathing Environmental for Every Bay Area Resident. San Francisco, CA: http://www.baagmd.gov/. Building Standards Commission (BCS). 2014 (September 17). California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). Sacramento, CA: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx. CALGreen. 2010. California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations). Sacramento, CA: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/home/calgreen.aspx. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016 (May 4). Ambient Air Quality Standards. Sacramento, CA: CARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2016b (September 9, access date). California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11). http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2016. San Bernardino County Important Farmland 2014. Sacramento, CA: FMMP. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016a (September 29, access date). Facility/Site Summary Details: Salton City Solid Waste Site (13-AA- 0011). Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/13-AA-0011 /Detail/. 2016b (September 29, access date). Diversion Program System (DPS) Jurisdiction Waste Diversion Program Summary: 2015, Rancho Cucamonga. Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle. http://www.calrecycle. ca. g ov/LG Central/reports/diversion prog ra m/Jurisdiction Diversion P rograms.aspx?Jurisdiction) D=392&Year=2015. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016 (September 29, date accessed). DTSC's Hazardous Wastes and Substances Site List — Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Sacramento, CA: DTSC. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteC[eanup/Cortese_List.cfm. (DTSC 2016). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011 (September 7, last updated). California Scenic Highway System (San Bernardino County). Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. http://www.d ot. ca.goWhq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index. htm. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015a. (June 10). 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Adoption Hearing. http://www. energy.ca.gov/title24/2016sta ndards/ruiemaki ng/documents/2015-06- 10_hearing/2015-06-10_Adoption_Hearing_Presentati on. pdf#page=8. R:\PrajecisdAROARO101001i 5wdydPT Arrow RaWe Revised Initial SWEy-060017.Eacs 5-1 References El—Pg 176 IPT Arrow Route DC Project 2015b (June, access date). Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtml?bill—id=201520160SB350. California Legislative Information. 2016a (accessed September 11). Senate Bill No. 32. Sacramento, CA: California Legislature. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextC]ient.xhtmI?bill id=201520160SB32 2016b (accessed September 11). Assembly Bill No. 197. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtmI?bill id=201520160AB197 Castaneda, J. 2015 (April 23). Personal communication. Phone conversation between J. Castaneda (County of Imperial Public Works Department) and M. Larum (BonTerra Psomas). Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD). 2015a (April 7). Personal communication. Email conversation between G. Harmon (Chaffey Joint Union High School District) and M.Larum (BonTerra Psomas) entitled `Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project'. 2015b (August 6). Personal communication. Email conversation between G. Harmon (Chaffey Joint Union High School District) and M.Larum (BonTerra Psomas) entitled 'Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project'. Civiltec Engineering Inc (Civiltec). 2016 (June). Cucamonga Valley Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Monrovia, CA: Civiltec. Cucamonga School District (CSD). 2016 (accessed September 6). Payment of Developer Fees by Appointment Only. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: CSD. http://www.cuca.kl2.ca.us/file/ 1319264699275/1444719954912/5118408365168045320.pdf. Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). 2017 (May, access date). Wastewater. Rancho Cucamonga: CVWD. http://www.cvwdwater.com/384[Wastewater. 2016 (August 10). Availability of Water and Sewer Service APN 0229-021-60 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Rancho Cucamonga: CVWD. Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 2016 (August 5). Preliminary Hydrology Report for IPT Arrow Route Industrial. Ontario, CA: Huitt-Zollars. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). 2016 (September, access date). Regional Water Recycling Plant #4. Chino, CA: IEUA. http://www.ieua.org/facilities/rp-4/. 2014 (July). Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2015-2019. Chino, CA: IEUA. NorCal Engineering (NorCal). 2016a (July 22). Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Industrial Development, Northwest Corner of Arrow Route and Juneberry Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Los Alamitos, CA: NorCal. 2016b (July 22). Soil Infiltration Study — Proposed Industrial Development — Located at the Northwest Corner of Arrow Route and Juneberry Drive, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Los Alamitos, CA: NorCal. R 1Plojeeb9ARV IAR01010C Inibal Study IPT Arrow Route Revered bt al 5Wtlyt60617.doex E1—Pg 177 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Ontario, City of. 2011 (April, adopted). LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Ontario, CA: the City. Psomas. 2016a (August 8). Biological Resources Analysis for the IPT Arrow Route 28 Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Santa Ana, CA: Psomas. 2016b (August). Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, IPT Arrow Route 28, 12400 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Santa Ana, CA: Psomas. 2016c (September). Noise Impact Analysis, Arrow Route 28 Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Santa Ana, CA: Psomas. Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2015 (November). Empire Lakes/Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project SCH No. 2015041083. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. https://www.cityofrc.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobI D=25341. 2013 (January). City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. http://www.cityofrc.us/documents/CityofRanchoCucamongaHMPFI NALDRAFT2013.pdf. 2012. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Tallahassee, FL: Municipal Code Corporation for the City. https:Hlibrary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientld=16570& state I d=5&stateN ame=Ca liforni a. 2010a (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. 2010b (May). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. 2009. Rancho Cucamonga Emergency Operations Plan. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. http://www.cityofrc.us/civica/fiiiebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7824. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). 2016 (September 29, access date). Emergency Response. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: RCFPD. https://www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/fire—district/dist.asp. Rancho Cucamonga Police Department (RCPD). 2016 (October 7, access date). Operations. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: RCPD. http://www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/police/operations/ default.asp. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2017a (May 3, access date). Region 8 Basin Plan map — Beneficial Uses. Sacramento, CA: RWQCB. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2017b (May 3, access date). Draft Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Sacramento, CA: RWQCB. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaan a/water—issues/programs/tmdl/303d_2017_2/a pp /AppendixC.shtml 2017b (May 3, access date). Draft Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Sacramento, CA: RWQCB. http://www.waterboards. ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/prog rams/tmdl/303d_2017_2/app /AppendixC.shtml RawojsaMARQIAR0101 ommiusi swayWT nno. Rome Revised mmoi smawae0517doe. 5-3 References E1—Pg 178 IPT Arrow Route DC Project RPS Iris Environmental (RPS Iris). 2016 (June). Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 28.73-Acre Site, 12400 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Irvine, CA: RPS Iris. San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department (SBCSD). 2016 (September 7, access date). http://cros.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/PatrolStations/RanchoCucamonga.aspx. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2016 (September 29, access date). San Bernardino County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit. Riverside, CA: Santa Ana RWQCB. www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/san_ bernardino_permit.shtml. 2010 (January 29). Waste Water Discharge Requirements for the County of San Bernardino and Unincorporated Cities of San Bernardino and Unincorporated Cities of San Bernardino County, Order No. R8-2010-0036. NPDES No. CAS618036. Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff. Riverside, CA: RWQCB. http: //www.waterboards. ca.g ov/santaa na/board—decisions/adopted_ord ers/orders/2010/ 10-036—S BC_M S4_Perm it_01 _29_10. pdf. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2013 (November). CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). Diamond Bar, CA: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/oldhdbk.html. 2012. 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/2012aqmp/drafUindex.htmi. 2003. 2003. Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/aqmd03aqmp.htm. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016 (April). The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2Ol6RTPSCS.pdf. United States Census Bureau. 2016 (October 7, access date). American FactFinder. Washington, DC: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/navfjsf/pages/index.xhtml. Urban Crossroads. 2016a (September 9). Arrow Route 28 Acre Development, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga. Irvine, CA: Urban Crossroads. 2016b (September 6). Arrow Route 28 Acre Development, Mobile Source Diesel Health Risk Assessment, City of Rancho Cucamonga. Irvine, CA: Urban Crossroads. 2016c (September 9). Arrow Route 28 Acre Development, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga. Irvine, CA: Urban Crossroads. 2016d (October 6). Arrow Route 28 Acre Development, Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga. Irvine, CA: Urban Crossroads. RAPmje[b!IAMARo10100JmheI Stud AIPT Fnow Route RoWsed In6al 5NEN060617.Eon El—Pg 179 m A IPT ARROW ROUTE 28 PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (INITIAL STUDY PART 111) Project File Name: IPT Arrow Route 28 Project Applicant: CitV of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared by: City of Rancho Cucamonga Date: June 2017 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of IVerifiedDate Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification /Initials Non -Compliance Air Quality RR AQ-1 The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications with implementation of Rule 403 (4) (Fugitive Dust): • All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph) per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The Contractor shall ensure that ail disturbed During plan check and unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the BO B/C construction A/C project are watered at least three times daily activities during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid -morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The Contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 mph or less. RR AQ-2 The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications with implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113: Prior to • Only "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds" paints BO A issuance of (no more than 100 gram/liter of volatile organic building building compounds [VOC]) and/or High Pressure Low permits Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. Page 1 of 10 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Date Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification /Initials Non -Compliance RRAQ-3 Plans, specifications, and contract During plan documents shall note that a sign shall be posted on site check and stating that construction workers shall not idle diesel CE D construction A/C engines in excess of five minutes. activities BiologicMlkesources;— MM BIO-1 A pre -construction clearance survey for burrowing owls should be conducted prior to initiating ground disturbance to ensure burrowing owls remain absent from the project site. The clearance survey should be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which requires that 2 clearance surveys be conducted 14 to 30 days and 24 hours prior to any grading or vegetation removal on the project site. Pre -construction surveys can be conducted at any time of year. If burrowing owls are observed, PD B/C Prior to ground AID additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation disturbance measures may be required. This may include, but not be limited to, a burrowing owl passive relocation plan to be prepared and submitted to the CDFW for review and approval prior to commencement of vegetation clearinglgrubbing, grading, and construction activities on the project site. The burrowing owl relocation plan will outline methods to passively relocate any burrowing owls and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. MM 8I0-2 In order to avoid impacts on nesting birds and raptors (common or special status), construction activities should be scheduled during the non -breeding season (generally between September 16 and February 14 for nesting birds and between July 1 and January 31 for Prior to nesting raptors), to the extent practicable. If timing PD B/C construction/du A/D requires that construction activities be conducted during ring the breeding season (generally between February,15 and construction September 15 for birds and between February 1 and June 30 for raptors but can vary slightly from year to year based on seasonal weather conditions), a pre -construction survey or multiple surveys should be conducted by a Page 2 of 10 m I v in 00 N Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Date Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification /Initials Non -Compliance qualified Biologist no more than 72 hours prior to disturbance to confirm the absence of active nests. If no active nests are found, no further measures would be necessary. If the Biologist finds an active nest within or adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted, he or she will identify an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. The active site will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities shall be required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest (the buffer shall be 300-500 feet for raptors), unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist and (2) access and surveying shall be restricted within the buffer of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist. Construction and/or encroachment into the buffer area around a known nest shall only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity would not disturb the nest occupants. Cultural. Resou_fces. � �:' '' ^- -' - ' ' "' _ - - — •• -- __ '• - - - ' - - - _ AIn MM CULT-1 the event that cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, the Contractor shall immediately cease all earth - disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Archaeologist (Project Archaeologist), subject to During approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to evaluate PD C excavation and AID the significance of the find and to determine an grading appropriate course of action. All artifacts except for human remains and related grave goods or sacred objects belong to the Property Owner. All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the Project Archaeologist. If Page 3 of 10 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date llnitials Sanctions for Non -Compliance any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, the Properly Owner/Developer and Project Archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the appropriate local Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the tribe. All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling. Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or relocated at the project site shall be prepared in a manner for curation and the Project Archaeologist shall deliver the materials to an accredited curation facility approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within a reasonable amount of time. Non -Native American artifacts shall be inventoried, assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation, personal affiliation (prior ownership), function, and temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and reporting, these artifacts shall be subjected to curation or returned to the Property Owner/Developer, as deemed appropriate. Once ground -altering activities have ceased or the Project Archaeologist determines that monitoring activities are no longer necessary, monitoring activities may be discontinued following notification to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. A report of findings, Including an itemized inventory of recovered artifacts, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered artifacts. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to archaeological and/or cultural resources. A copy of the Page 4 of 10 m 9 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance report shall also be filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). MM CULT-2 If any paleontological resources (e.g., plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the Property OwnedDeveioper shall retain a qualified Paleontologist to evaluate unanticipated discoveries and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The Paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a Paleontological Monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full time during earth -disturbing activities. • Divert earth disturbing activities away from the PD C During gradingand �D immediate area of the discovery until the construction Paleontological Monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the Grading Contractor shall immediately' divert construction and notify the Paleontological Monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (e.g., San Bernardino County Museum). • Prepare and submit a technical report describing the identification, salvage, evaluation, and treatment of all fossils discovered during grading to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the depository. Page 5 of 10 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency I Timing of Verification Method of Verification I Verified Date /Initials I Sanctions for Non -Compliance Geology and -Soils MM GEO-1 Prior to approval of final plans and specifications for the IPT Arrow Route project, the City Engineer, or his/her designee, shall review the project plans to confirm that all recommendations in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Industrial Development, Northwest Corner of Arrow Route and Juneberry Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California (dated July 22, 2016, and prepared by NorCal Engineering) and In any future geotechnical reports have been fully and appropriately incorporated. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following geotechnical areas: • Site Grading o Removal and Recompaction ' o Fill Blanket Prior to • Shrinkage and Subsidence g CE/BO A/B/C approval of final plans and C/D • Temporary Excavations specifications • Foundation Design • Settlement Analysis • Lateral Resistance • Retaining Wall Design • Slab Design • Pavement Section Design • Utility Trench and Excavation Backfill • Corrosion Design Criteria • Expansive Soil Page 6 of 10 I Mitigation Measures No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Date Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification /Initials Non -Compliance Noise - 7- RR NOI-1 Noise -generating construction activities shall comply with Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code as follows: • Construction adjacent to commercial or Industrial BO C During A/C uses shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 AM to construction 10:00 PM on all days and shall not exceed 70 A - weighted decibels (dBA) at the adjacent property line.' MM NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit plans and/or specifications to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Prior to Department demonstrating that vibratory rollers would not issuance of be used within 15 feet of an off -site structure and that large BO C each grading C/D bulldozers or similar heavy equipment would not be used permit within 8 feet of an off -site building. Vibratory rollers operated in the static mode will be allowed. Transportafitinfl raffic' PDF TRAF-1 The following site access improvements shall be constructed as part of the project, in conjunction With project construction: • Driveway 1 atArrow Route. Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Southbound approach: One shared left -right CE CID During A/C turn lane, construction o Eastbound approach: One left -turn lane (storage to be accommodated within existing two-way left -turn lane) and one through lane. o Westbound approach: One through lane and one shared through -right turn lane. The noise level limits in RR N0I-1 are assumed to be average noise levels, L", based on Section 17.66.050.C, Exterior Noise Standards, which uses a "basic" noise level that is interpreted to be Loy. Page 7 of 10 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance • Driveway 2 at Arrow Route. Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Southbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One left -turn lane (storage to be accommodated within existing two-way left -turn lane) and one through lane. o Westbound approach: One through lane and one shared through -right turn lane. • Driveway 3/Private Driveway. Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: One shared left - through lane. o Southbound approach: One shared through - right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. • Driveway 4/Private Driveway. Install a slop control on the eastbound approach and construct the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: One shared left - through lane. o Southbound approach: One shared through - right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. • Private Driveway/Juneberry Drive/Arrow Route. Align the private driveway with the existing Juneberry Drive at Arrow Route intersection and modify the existing traffic signal phasing on the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate permissive left turns. Also maintain the following geometrics: Page 8 of 10 M Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Date Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification !Initials Non -Compliance o Northbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane and shared through -right turn lane. o Souhbound approach: Keep existing shared through -left turn lane and defacto right turn. o Eastbound approach: Keep existing left-tum lane, through lane, and defacto right turn. Add a second through lane. o Westbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane, through lane, and defacto right turn. Add a second through lane. PDFTRAF-2 The following site -adjacent roadway improvements along Arrow Route shall be constructed as part of the project: • Construct Arrow Route at Its ultimate half -section width as a Major Arterial (100-foot right-of-way) During between the project's western and eastern CE CID A1C boundaries. Improvements along the project's construction frontage (north side of Arrow Route) would be those required by final conditions of approval for the proposed project and applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. RR TRAF-1 In accordance with Chapter 3.28, City - Wide' System Fees for Transportation Development, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Prior to Owner/Developer shall pay applicable Citywide CE A issuance of p transportation development impact fees to the satisfaction each building of the City Engineering Department. These impact fees, permit along with the use of State and federal funds, is expected to implement various freeway, highway, and roadway projects in and near Rancho Cucamonga. MM TRAF-1 Prior to issuance of buildings permits, the Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fee (estimated at Prior to 3.5 percent) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the CE A issuance of p following improvement required to mitigate Horizon Year building (2040) with project traffic conditions: permits Page 9 of 10 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance • Etiwanda Avenue/Arrow Route —Construct a second eastbound through lane. The fair share payment amount shall be established by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department. The timing of implementation of the improvements shall be determined by the City and the improvements, shall be completed by the City in the time frame necessary to avoid identified significant cumulative impacts. The City shall be responsible for collecting the remainder of the fees necessary to complete this improvement. MM TRAF-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval. The Traffic Control Plan shall describe safe detours and provide temporary traffic control during construction activities for the project. To reduce traffic congestion, the Plan shall include, as necessary, CE BIG Prior to AID appropriate, and practicable, the following: temporary issuance of a traffic controls (e.g., a flag person) during construction to grading permit maintain smooth traffic flow; dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site; scheduling of construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours; and consolidation of truck deliveries. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible.Pers6n . Monitoring Frequency "Method of Verification Sanctions CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A- On -site Inspection t - Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD - Planning Director or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit I Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permil CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/ Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 7 - Citation Page 10 of 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Design Review DRC2016-00726 Public Review Period Closes: July 26, 2017 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC, LP Project Applicant: Russell Pierce RDP Development, Inc. 1916 Via Rancho Parkway Escondido, CA 92029 Project Location (also see attached map): 12400 Arrow Route on the north side of Arrow Route and about 1,300 east of interstate 15 —APN 0229-021-60. Project Description: A request for site plan and architectural review of a 611,573 square foot industrial building on 26.63-acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District on the north side of Arrow Route and west of Etiwanda Avenue -APN 0229-021-60. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Reportwill not be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909)477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. July 26, 2017 Date of Determination Adopted By E1—Pg 190 �� Footh FA0 vd W ^_ 't' Airq NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Environmental and Cultural Department 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone (916) 373-3710 Fax (916) 373-5471 July 3, 2017 Nikki Cavazos City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Sent via e-mail: nikki.cavazos@cityofrc.us _. Edmund G_Brown Jr_„Gosemgc les?'zw a` V Re: SCH# 2017061061, Design Review DRC2016-00726, IPT Arrow Route DC Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga; San Bernardino County, California Dear Ms. Cavazos: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above. The review included the Introduction and Project Description, the Environmental Checklist, and Appendix D, Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by BonTerra Psomas for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We have the following concerns: 1. Lack of contact with tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated to the project area does not mean there are no potential impacts. 2. There are no mitigation measures specifically addressing inadvertent finds of Tribal Cultural Resources separately. Mitigation measures must take Tribal Cultural Resources into consideration as required under AB-52, with or without consultation occurring. Mitigation language for archaeological resources is not always appropriate for or similar to measures specifically for handling Tribal Cultural Resources. Sample mitigation measures for Tribal Cultural Resources can be found in the CEQA guidelines at http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/dogs/ab52tClean-final-AB-52-App-G-text-Submitted.pdf Additionally, mitigation for inadvertent finds of Tribal Cultural Resources can be developed from the recommendations in Appendix D. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)', specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.' If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared. In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE). CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AS 52)' AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 created a separate category for "tribal cultural resources" , that now includes "a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment 6 Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource! Your project may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code 65352.3, if it also involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space. Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. Additionally, if your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 at seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 19666 may also apply. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SS 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws. ' Pub. Resources Cade § 21000 at seq. 'Pub. Resources Cade § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b) Pub. Resources Cade § 21000 id); Cal. Cade Pegs., N. 14, § 15064 subd.(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (a)(1) "Government Code 65352.3 EXHIBIT J El—Pg192 Agencies should be aware that AB 52 does not preclude agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http./inahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. Additional information regarding AB 52 can be found online at htip://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52Triba]Consufation_CalEPAPDF,pdf, entitled "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices". The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments is also attached. Please contact me at gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov or call (916) 373-3710 if you have any questions Sincerely, JasTotton,B.S.MA., Ph.D ate Governmental Project Analyst Attachment cc: State Clearinghouse E1-Pg 193 Pertinent Statutory Information: Under AB 52: AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project 9 and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental Impact report. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code § 65352.4 (SB 18).10 The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Alternatives to the project. b. Recommended mitigation measures. c. Significant effects." 1. The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. 12 With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included In the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the Information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public.13 If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource.14 Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached." Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion In the environmental document and In an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable.16 If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that aproject will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 (b) 1] An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process. ° Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (a) 10 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (b) " Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a) "Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a) "Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (c)(1) 14 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (b) " Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (b) 16 Pub. Resources Cade § 21082.3 (a) " Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (a) El-Pg 194 c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days." This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document. Under SB 18: Government Code § 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of "preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described § 5097.9 and § 5091.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Government Code § 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for consultation with Native American tribes on the open -space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Cade. • SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space.. Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at: https://www.opr ca.gov/docs/09_14_05. Updated_ Guidelines_922.pdf • Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.19 There is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law. • Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research 21 the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction.21 • Conclusion Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation 22 NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments: Contact the NAHC for: 0 A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE. A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures. • The request form can be found at nttp://nahc ca gov/resources/forms/. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http./lohp.parks.ca. gov/?page id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine: If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. 0 If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. 0 If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center. Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (d) " (Gov. Cede §65352.3 (a)(2)). pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2, (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b)). r (Tnbal Consultation Guidelines, Governors Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 19). 4 El-Pg195 Examples of Mitigation Measures That May Be Considered to Avoid or Mlnlmize Signlf[cant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources: g Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: • Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. • Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: • Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. • Protecting the traditional use of the resource. • Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. o Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non -federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial glace may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. o Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated .14 The lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting_program Dian provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources. In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground -disturbing activities. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds. (d) and (a)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. a (Civ. Code § 815.3 (c)). "(Pub. Resources Code § 5097.991). a per Cal. Cade Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f)). 5 E1—Pg 196 Department of Toxic Substances Control Matthew Rodriquez Secretary for Environmental Protection July 5, 2017 Ms. Nikki Cavazos Barbara A. Lee, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 N i kki. Cava zos(a)cityofrc. us Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 (IPT ARROW ROUTE 28) PROJECT (SCH# 2017061061) Dear Ms. Cavazos: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the subject ND. The following project description is stated in the ND: "A review of a proposal to construct one (1) concrete tilt -up warehouse building totaling approximately 611,573 square feet on a property with an area of 26.63 acres which is undeveloped and consists of overgrown agricultural land in the General Industrial (GI) District located along Arrow Route, west of Etiwanda Avenue; APN: 0229-021-60." Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments: The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. If there are any recognized environmental conditions in the project area, then proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the appropriate regulatory agencies should be conducted prior to the new development or any construction. If the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If planned activities include structures/building modifications/demolitions, lead - based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs) should be addressed in accordance with all applicable and relevant laws and regulations. e - U1 P.g 1.97._ Ms. Nikki Cavazos July 5, 2017 Page 2 4. The ND states, "The project site is currently undeveloped and consists of overgrown/fallow agricultural land." The ND further states, "As further discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the project site consists of an abandoned vineyard, semi -natural herbaceous stand, and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) stand." However, in section 8b. of the ND states, "However, these residual concentrations, if present, are not typically at concentrations that would require cleanup by a regulatory agency or pose a significant human health risk to commercial or industrial site users (RPS Iris 2016." If the site was used for agricultural or related activities, residual pesticides may be present in onsite soil. DTSC recommends investigation and mitigation, as necessary, to address potential impact to human health and environment from residual pesticides. DTSC recommends evaluation, proper investigation and mitigation, if necessary, on onsite areas with current or historic PCB -containing transformers. 6. If soil contamination is suspected or observed in the project area, then excavated soil should be sampled prior to exporUdisposal. If the soil is contaminated, it should be disposed of properly in accordance with all applicable and relevant laws and regulations. If the project proposes to import soil to backfill the excavated areas, proper evaluation and/or sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5380 or email at Johnson.Abraham(a)dtsc.ca.gov. $i cerely, c Joh on P. Abraham Project Manager Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program — Cypress kl/sh/ja cc: See next page. E1-Pg 198 Ms. Nikki Cavazos July 5, 2017 Page 3 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research (via e-mail) State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 State.clearinghouse(a)opr.ca.gov Mr. Dave Kereazis (via e-mail) Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave. Kereazis cDdtsc.ca.gov Mr. Shahir Haddad, Chief (via e-mail) Schools Evaluation and Brownfields Cleanup Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program - Cypress Shahir. Haddad(a.dtsc.ca.gov CEQA# 2017061061 El—Pg 199 IPT Arrow Route DC RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE IPT ARROW ROUTE DC PROJECT Design Review DRC2016-00726 SCH No. 2017061061 Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the potential environmental effects of the proposed IPT Arrow Route DC Project (project) have been analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated June 2017 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2017061061). The public review period extended for 30 days beginning June 22, 2017 and ending on July 21, 2017; however, the City accepted comments up to July 26, 2017 (the date of the Planning Commission hearing). The City distributed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND along with the IS; the NOI and IS/MND were distributed to 39 agencies, organization and individuals. Additionally, the NOI was also posted at the project site and in the local newspaper. Letters commenting on the information and analysis in the IS/MND were received during the public review period from the following agencies: • California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (July 3, 2017) California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (July 5, 2017) CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) states that prior to approving a project, the lead agency must consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Written responses to comments are not required; however, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as lead agency, has prepared written responses to agency comments received. The comment letters followed by the City's responses are attached. The numbers provided in the right margin of the comment letters correspond to the responses to comments. Based on the evaluation in the IS/MND and the comments received, the City has determined that all potential impacts associated with the proposed project are less than significant with incorporation of identified project design features (PDFs), project -specific mitigation measures (MMs), and regulatory requirements (RRs). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has also been prepared and will be implemented for the proposed project. Therefore, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that an MND in accordance with CEQA is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project. hPL NNING%Nikk1Desi9n RevieMDRC2016-00726 Omnitrans sitelDrafl Amw Route RTC 071717 (Response Comments).docx 1 Responses to Comments E1—Pg 200 IPTAmovv Route DC 511LTE9ECALIEPF- IA „-=_ _._fdr ndStzBlplvll.Jd,—Go kerrlgr NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Fnvlmn eemul and Cultuml Department t 1550 Rerbor Blvd., Suite 100 well Sacramento, CA enter Mo. C916) 373.37710 Fox (916) 373.5471 July 3, 2017 Nikki Cavazos City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Sent via e-mail: nikki.cavazos@cityefrc.us Re: SCHP 2017061061. Design Review DRC2016.00726, IPT Arrow Route DC Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga; San Bernardino County, California Dear Ms. Cavazos The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above. The review included the Introduction and Project Description, the Environmental Checklist, and Appendix 0 Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by BonTerra Psomas for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We have the following concerns:' I. Lack of contact with tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated to the project area does not mean there are no potential impacts. 2. There are no mitigation measures specifically addressing inadvertent finds of Tribal Cultural Resources separately. Mitigation measures must take Tribal Cultural Resources into consideration as required under AB-52, with or without consultation occurring. Mitigation language for archaeological resources is not always appropriate for of similar to measures specifically for handling Tribal Cultural Resources. Sample mitigation measures for Tribal Cultural Resources can be found in the CECA guidelines of httpl/(Qsources.ca,govtgega/pgps/r4y520gan-tinal_AB 52 App,.G._texi-Submitted,prlf Additionally, mitigation for inadvertent finds of Tribal Cultural Resources can be developed from the recommendations in Appendix D. The California Environmental Duality Act (CEOA)1, specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1. states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ahistorical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a.. significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared.3 In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE). CEOA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AB 52).4 AB 5Vapplles to any project for which'a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration Is tiled on or after July 1, 2015. AS 52 created a separate category for 'tribal cultural resources". that now includes 'a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource Is a project that may have a significant effect on the environments Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. Your project may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code:'65352.3, if also Involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space. Bath SB 1B and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements, Additionally, it your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 at seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966' may also apply. Consul[ your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SR 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws '' np P,A. Reumce Cede §0W 21GI sea Pub ruoux" e9 Code § 210611. Cal Code Pegs, G114. § 150643 (b).CEDA Gukarnue Sawere mix,l5 pe n Pub Resources Code § 210e0 (dr, Cal Cade Ra3f , 51 14, § 15061 soled (a)(1); C Qk GuiunuM § ISgOG 0)(11 ' CGvemmonl Code W523 ' Pub Re4curme Code § 21071 ' Pub P"'ex" M Code If 2fOt4 2 ' Pub Roxcurc ; Cope 5210043 (a) ' 154 U S C 300t01, 35 C F.R § ton i sal klPLANNING\NikkMesign RevlewlDRC2016.00725 Craniums stte\Draft Mow Route RTC 071717 (Response Comments).docx 2 Responses to Comments E1-Pg 201 1PTAmow Route DC Agencies should be aware that AS 52 does not preclude agencies from Initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their judsdldions before the fimeframes provided In AB 52. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request fors can be found online at.blip_gaabs,FagOp/fesqufaesQopny. Additional Information regarding AS 52 can be found online at hdpl/nah0.oa gckvhvp_cpplent/upload$WI5/10/AB52TrbatGonsultaF.on_CaI,EPAPOF.pg(, entitled 'Tribal Consultation Under AS 52: Requirements and Best Practices'. 3 cont. The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tubes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. A brief summary of pgBlops of AS 52 and SO 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources 4 assessments is also attached. Please contact me. at gayle.totion®nahc.ca.govar call (gib) 373-3710 it you have anyqueslions. Sincerely, a Tolson, B.S.�PhD ss ate Governmental Project Analyst Attachment cc: State Clearinghouse h1PLANNINGINiWWiDesign RevlewlDRC2016-00726 Omnitrans at.Mrafl Arrow Route RTC 071717 (Response Oommems).docx 3 Responses to Comments El-Pg 202 IPTAnow Route DC Ped1niont O?Stt1Jg_ry I�r fQLnnaal(en; Under AS 52: AS 52 has added to CEGA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project Is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal noti icatlon to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that Is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.° and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental Impact report. For purposes of AS 52,'consukadon shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code § 65352.4 (SB 18).ro The following topics of consultation,if a tribe. requests to dlscussthem, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Alternatives to the project. _ b. Recommended mhlfgatlon measures. c. Significant effects.) 1: The followingtopics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary, b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project's Impacts an tribal cultural resources. If necessary, Qzoject alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. With some exceptions, any Information, Including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribeduringthe environmental review process shall not be Included In the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the teed agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 5254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a Caldomla Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published In a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the Information consents, in willing, to the disclosure of some or all of the Intonation to the public, 13 If a project may have a significant Impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the proposed project has a significant Impact on an Identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible ahematives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the Impact on the Identified tribal cultural resource.1° Consultation with a tribe shall be cons'Idered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, It a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or b. A party, acting In good faith and after reasonable effort, Concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.lo Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for Inclusion In the environmental document and In an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the imlpact pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. e If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmentaldocument or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and If substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public. Resources Coda sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agencyorotherwise failed to engage In the consultation process. 'Pub. Roucurcos Codo § 21000.3.1, ovals. (d) BM (a) 10 PID. Resaurcee Coda § 2f 090.3.1 (b) " RA. Resource, Code § 21080.3.2 (a) a Pub. Resources lode Q 21080.3.2 (a) Pub. Resources Coda Q 21062.3 (c)(1) Pub. Rescurous Coda § 21082.3 (b) 1° Pub. Resources Code § 21000.3.2 (b) "Pub. Rosourtme Code $ 210823 (a) 'r Pub. resources Cade it 21082.3 (a) 11PL NINGMkkPDesign Review1DRC201640726 Omnitrans sWD.ft Anew Route RTC 071717 (Response Comments).docx 4 Responses to Comments E1-Pg 203 IPT Arrow Route DC Project c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) and the Vibe failed to request consultation within 30 days.ls This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document. Under SB 18: Government Code § 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of 'preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described § 5097.9 and § 5091.993 of the Public Resources Cade that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Government Code § 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for consultation with Native American tribes on the open -space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code. • SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's `Tribal Consultation Guidelines; which can be found online at: hhpA:,I v/vW.opr&a,g4_v/dgc@!09_79_05_Updd(eQ_Guideli0es_92_2,pQ) • T ibal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a generalplan or a specific plan, or to designate open space It is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a'Tribal Consultation List' If a tribe, once Contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter tlmeframe has been agreed to by the tribe." • Tt eg Is no Slatutq_ry TiL11eUmSt on Tribal Consultation under the law. • _ onfdentiaIity: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research,en the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the Information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction.21 • Qonplusion Tribel5onsultat pq: Consultation should be concluded at the point In which: e The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation 22 NANC Recommendations for Cultural_ Resources_As_sessments: Contact the NAHC for: o A Sacred Lands Fite search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites In the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes [hat are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE. o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for Consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures. The request form can be found at http://0aho pa,gov/Cesoumga/&[9, ns/. • Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http110hp.lswky.ca;gov/7pa9e i9=.1068) for an archaeological records search The records search will determine: o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. o It any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. o If the, probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. o If a survey Is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are p(esenl. If an archaeological Inventorysurvey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. o The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted Immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in aseparate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center. 11 Pub, Resources Cotle if 21002.3 (d) (Gov Coda if 653523 (a)(2)). m pursuant W Gov Code section 650,102. " IGw. Cads § 65352.3 (b)) n ITrbal Consultation Guidelines. GOVemare C01w Of Plenning eM Research (2005) at p. 18). I:\PLANNINGWikkdDesign RevievADRC2016-00726 Gmnivans si[WDraft Anew Rattle RTC 071717 (Response Commentattlocx 5 Responses to Comments E1-Pg 204 IPT Arrow Route DC o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: • Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. • Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to Incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking Into account the tribal cultural values anti meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the lollowing: • Protecting the cultural character and Integrity of the resource. • Protecting the traditional use of the resource. • Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. o Permanent conservation easements or other Interests In real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. o Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non•federalty recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or Ceremonial ace may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. o Please note that It Is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. The lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (Including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. lggnnncar on ana av le var oLn grJlr a_eyenennv mscoussea amnaeotoaical re ur s." In areas of Identified amhaeologlcal sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and aculturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground -disturbing activities. are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. ¢�F�IIIsln�nlsprLwn or Inagygpenuv d scouQrQtl n�a II ve Amaricenlium�n remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5. subdivislans (d) and (a) (CECA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds. (d) and (a)) address the processes to be followed In the event of an Inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods In a location other than a dedicated cemetery. n (Civ. Cods § 815.3 (c)). u (Pub. Resources Code § 5097.991). e per Cal. Code Rage., uL 14, section 160ed.5(Q (CEOA GUItlGMossec0an 15064vp)). 5 I.\ I ANNINGW ItklDesign Rev]eMDRC2016-00726 Omnitrene site%Drda Arrow Route RTC 071717 (Response Commenls).docx 6 Responses to Comments El-Pg 205 IPTArrow Route DC Responses to Comments from the California Native American Heritage Commission The analysis presented in the Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study (IS) (refer to page 3-26), acknowledges that although the project would have a low probability of disturbing previously unrecorded archaeological resources, a potential exists that unknown archaeological resources will be discovered during construction activities. Similarly, there is a low probability that tribal cultural resources would be encountered. Mitigation Measure (MM) CULT-1 on pages 3-27 and 3-28 of the IS is taken from the Cultural Resources Assessment provided in Appendix D, as referenced by the commenter. This MM requires that if any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, the Property Owner/Developer and Project Archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the appropriate local Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the tribe. All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling. 2. The potential for historic resources to be present at the project site was evaluated in the Cultural Resources Assessment included in Appendix D of the IS, and summarized in the Cultural Resources Section (refer to page 3-26). As identified, based on review of available literature and a field survey, with the exception of a sewer line, no structures are present on the property. The survey did not result in the identification of historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that merited recordation. Therefore, no historical resources are present on the project site; no historic resources would be impacted directly or indirectly by project implementation, and no mitigation is required. 3. As identified in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of the IS (see page 3-87), as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City of Rancho Cucamonga provided project notification to Native American tribes that have requested such notification in writing; four tribes had requested such notice at the time the IS/MND was prepared. No responses were received within the mandated 30-day response time; therefore, the City has fulfilled its obligation pursuant to AB 52. It is noted that a request for consultation was received after the official deadline from the San Manuel Native American Tribe (Tribe). The City attempted to contact the tribe several times; however, no response from the Tribe was received. Notwithstanding the lack of response, as noted in Response to Comment 2 above, MM CULT-1 includes requirements for coordination with the appropriate Native American tribe if any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered. It is also identified on page 3-87 of the IS that the proposed project would not require a change to the City's General Plan or a Specific Plan Amendment; therefore, compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 18 is not required for this project. Further, the proposed project does not require any federal approvals and is not subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 4. The referenced attachments summarize statutory information regarding AB 52 and SB 18, and NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments. This comment and the attachments do not address the analysis provided in the IS and no response is required. Further, as discussed above, the City has completed the required AB 52 process and SB 18 is not applicable to the project. A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix D of the IS. I: IPLANNINGKkkilDesign Review1DRC2016-00726 omnitrans site%Dmft Mow Route RTC 071717 (Response Comments). does 7 Responses to Comments E1—Pg 206 IPT Arrow Route DC Matthew Rodriquez secretary For Environmental Protection July 5, 2017 Department of Toxic Substances Control Barbara A. Lee, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Ms. Nikki Cavazos Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Nikki. Cavazosla�citvofrc us M Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 (IPT ARROW ROUTE 28) PROJECT (SCH# 2017061061) Dear Ms. Cavazos: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the subject ND. The following project description is stated in the ND: "A review of a proposal to construct one (1) concrete tilt -up warehouse building totaling approximately 611,573 square feet on a property with an area of 26.63 acres which is undeveloped and consists of overgrown agricultural land in the General Industrial (GI) District located along Arrow Route, west of Etiwanda Avenue; APN: 0229-021-60." Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments 1. The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. If there are any recognized environmental conditions in the project area, then 2 proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the appropriate regulatory agencies should be conducted prior to the new development or any construction. 2. If the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be 1 required to obtain an NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Jr 3 Control Board (RWQCB). 3. If planned activities include structures/building modifications/demolitions, lead - based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (AGMs) q should be addressed In accordance with all applicable and relevant laws and regulations. OPL NNING1NWMesign RevleMDRC2016-00726 omnitrans site\Draft A.. Route RTC 071717 (Response Comments).docx 8 Responses to Comments El—Pg 207 IPT Arrow Route DC Ms. Nikki Cavazos July 5, 2017 Page 2 4. The ND states, 'The project site is currently undeveloped and consists of overgrown/fallow agricultural land." The ND further states, 'As further discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the project site consists of an abandoned vineyard, semi -natural herbaceous stand, and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) stand." However, in section 8b. of the ND states, "However, these residual concentrations, if present, are not typically at concentrations that would require cleanup by a regulatory agency or pose a significant human health risk to commercial or industrial site users (RPS Iris 2016." If the site was used for agricultural or related activities, residual pesticides may be present in onsite soil. DTSC recommends investigation and mitigation, as necessary, to address potential impact to human health and environment from residual pesticides. 5. DTSC recommends evaluation, proper investigation and mitigation, if necessary, on onsite areas with current or historic PCB -containing transformers. 6. If soil contamination is suspected or observed in the project area, then excavated soil should be sampled prior to exporUdisposal. If the soil is contaminated, it should be disposed of properly in accordance with all applicable and relevant laws and regulations. If the project proposes to import soil to backfill the excavated areas, proper evaluation and/or sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 7. If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5380 or email at Johnson Abrahamfa)dtsc ca cov.. Si cerely, 1 Joh on P. Abraham Project Manager Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program — Cypress kl/shfja cc: See next page. I:%PLANNINGWkkODesign R.tev DRC2016 00726 Omnitrans sitelDrak Mow Route RTC 071717 (Response Comments).Cocx 9 Responses to Comments E1-Pg 208 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Ms. Nikki Cavazos July 5, 2017' Page 3 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research (via e-mail) State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 State clearinghouse(a)oor ca oov Mr. Dave Kereazis (via e-mail) Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave KereaZispdtsC ca aov Mr. Shahir Haddad, Chief (via e-mail) Schools Evaluation and Brownfields Cleanup Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program - Cypress Shahir.Haddadadtsc ca oov CEQA# 2017061061 kTLANNINGWikk)Desi9n RevievADRC2016-00725 0mnitrans sR.%Drefi Arrow Route RTC 071717 (Response Comments).docx 10 Responses to Comments El—Pg 209 IPT Arrow Route DC Responses to Comments from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 1. This comment accurately summarizes the proposed project; no response is required 2. As discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the IS (refer to page 3-46), a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project and is provided in its entirety in Appendix G of the IS. As requested by the commenter, the Phase I ESA addresses whether current or historic uses at the project site may have resulted in the release of hazardous wastes/substances. Specifically, the objective of the Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), which are defined as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property". Despite the presence of nearby industrial facilities, and based on information reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA preparation (including an environmental database report), no RECs from current or historical uses of the surrounding properties were identified. 3. The proposed project would not involve discharging wastewater to a storm drain; wastewater would discharge to the municipal sewer system. 4. The project site is currently undeveloped and the proposed project does not involve the demolition or modification of any structures; there would be no exposure to lead based paint or products, mercury, or asbestos containing material. 5. As identified in the Phase I ESA (included in Appendix G of the IS/MND), and summarized in the IS (page 3-46), based on available information, residual pesticides at the site, if present, would not be at concentrations that would require cleanup by a regulatory agency or pose a significant human health risk to commercial or industrial site users. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. However, to address this comment, as a condition of approval, the City will require that soil sampling be conducted to demonstrate that there are no concentrations above the California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) for the proposed non-residential uses. Evidence that the onsite soils do not contain concentrations of chemicals of concern above the applicable CHHSLs would be provided to the Planning Department by the project applicant before grading permits are issued by the City. 6. The potential for the current or historic presence of PCB -containing transformers at the project site was evaluated in the Phase I ESA (included in Appendix G of the IS). The project site is not connected to any utilities, the site owner's representative is not aware of any PCB containing equipment located at the site, and no other potential PCB containing equipment was observed during the site reconnaissance. No further evaluation of this issue is required. 7. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, there is no contaminated soil present at the project site. As identified under the discussion of "Construction Activities" in the IS (refer to page 2-6), the proposed project would not require the import of soil, rather there will be a small amount of soil export. 8. Based on the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the proposed project (included in Appendix E of the IS), and as identified on page 2-1 of the IS, groundwater is estimated at a depth of over 400 feet below ground surface. Therefore, groundwater would OPLANNING1NikkilCesign Review10RC2016-00726 Gmnitrans site%Dralt Arrow Route RTC 071717 (Response Commenls).aocx 11 Responses to Comments E1—Pg 210 1PTAmow Route DC not be encountered during construction. While not expected to be encountered, if the presence of contaminated soils is suspected during construction, the contractor would be required to comply with applicable regulations, as stated by the commenter. Specifically, the proposed project, which implements development allowed by the City of Rancho 2010 Cucamonga General Plan Update, would be required to comply with the City's Standard Conditions that are applicable to development in the City. These conditions are outlined in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and includes, but are not limited to compliance with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which governs the transport of hazardous materials, such as contaminated soil. JAPLANNINGWikODesign RBNev DRC2016-00726 Omnivmn siteto.ft Arrow Route RTC 071717 (Response Comments) doe. 12 Responses.. to Comments E1—Pg 211 Cavazos, Nikki From: Totton, Gayle@NAHC <Gayle.Totton@NAHC.CA.GOV> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 7:24 AM To: Cavazos, Nikki Subject: RE: DRC 2016-00726 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Good morning Nikki, I received the comments from the consultant. Their explanation is adequate for this project so I will not make further comments. For future reference, we are really looking for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) mitigation to be not only separate from the archaeological mitigation but distinctly different. A general example would be the typical language for archaeology (data recovery, curation, etc) would be inappropriate for most TCRs. And we also look for mitigation that is developed in consultation with the local tribe(s) so there would not be a provision to contact us to see which tribe to contact. You would already know who is affiliated to the project area. If the project has a Native American monitor, I try to make sure the monitor has the same rights to stop work on a project that the archaeological monitor has... Those kinds of things are what I am looking for in mitigation for TCRs. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or if anything comes up on future projects. Sincerely, Gayle Gayle Totton, M.A., Ph.D. Associate Governmental Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission (916)373-3710 From: Cavazos, Nikki [Nikki.Cavazos@cityofrc.us] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 4:50 PM To: Totton, Gayle@NAHC Subject: DRC 2016-00726 IPT Arrow Route DC Project Good Afternoon Gayle, City staff received the attached comments from your team and forwarded them to the consulting firm that drafted the initial study and MND. Please see their comments (attached) and let me know if you have any questions or further comments. The public hearing is next week so I will have to make a call this week as far as canceling the public hearing in order to give us time to resolve any further issues. We take your comments very seriously and want to make sure that we resolve any concerns you may have before we take the project to the public hearing. Please do not hesitate to email or call me. Thank you for your time Gayle. Warm Regards, Nikki Cavazos Assistant Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 (909) 477-2750 Ext. 4311, Mon-Thurs. 7 am - 6pm E1—Pg 212 Cavazos, Nikki From: Abraham, Johnson@DTSC <Johnson.Abraham@dtsc.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:14 AM To: Cavazos, Nikki Subject: RE: DRC2016-00726 Design Review (IPT Arrow Route 28) Hi Nikki: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the responses and does not have any further comments. However, regarding item N5, California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) are no longer used by DTSC. Currently DTSC uses U.S. EPA's Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). You are proposing CHHSLs for non-residential uses. DTSC proposes RSL for residential use. If the Project Proponent is unable to achieve RSL for residential use, DTSC record Land Use Covenant (LUC) (Deed Restriction) on such properties. It is up to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, what you need to decide. Thanks. From: Cavazos, Nikki[mailto:Nikki.Cavazos@cityofrc.us] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 4:44 PM To: Abraham, Johnson@DTSC Cc: Laliberte, Kelly@DTSC Subject: DRC2016-00726 Design Review (IPT Arrow Route 28) Good Afternoon Abraham, City staff received the attached comments from your department and forwarded them to the consulting firm that drafted the initial study and MND. Please see their comments (attached) and let me know if you have any questions or further comments. The public hearing is next week so I will have to make a call this week as far as canceling the public meeting in order to give us time to resolve any further issues. We take your comments very seriously and want to make sure that we resolve any concerns you may have before we take the project to the public hearing. Warm Regarafs, 9Vikki Cavazos .Assistant Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga CA 9173o (909) 477-2750 Ext. 4311, _1011-ThUrs. 7 ant - 6pm E1-Pg 213 RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 611,573 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT PARCEL OF 26.63 ACRES IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, ABOUT 1,200 FEET EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, AND ABOUT 2,600 FEET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE — APN: 0229-021-60 A. Recitals. 1. IPT Arrow Route DC, LP filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2016-00726 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as 'the application." 2. On the 26th day of July 2017 the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on July 26, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property generally located on the north side of Arrow Route, about 1,200 feet east of Interstate 15, and about 2,600 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue; and b. The property has an area of about 26.63 acres and is about 925 feet (east to west) by about 1,270 feet (north to south); and C. The parcel is vacant and has historically been used for a vineyard; and d. The property is bound on the west by a parcel that is developed with a self -storage facility (Planet Storage) and another parcel that is developed with a warehouse building. The property is bound on the east by a parcel that is developed with a chemical manufacturing facility (Air Liquide). To the north is a property that consists of several parcels that are developed with a commercial center (Foothill Marketplace) that includes businesses such as Walmart, Living Spaces, Claim Jumper and In-N-Out Burger. To the south, on the south side of Arrow Route, is a parcel developed with a steel manufacturing facility (CMC); and E1—Pg 214 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 2 e. The zoning of the property and the properties surrounding the subject property to the west and east is General Industrial (GI) District. The zoning of the properties to the north is Regional Related Commercial (RRC) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District, and the zoning of the properties to the south is Heavy Industrial (HI) District. and The applicant proposes to construct an industrial building of 611,573 square feet; Ims g. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction. The basic layout of the building will be typical for warehouse buildings. The primary (or long) axis for the building will be aligned north to south. The office areas will be located at the southeast and southwest corners of the building. There will be two dock loading/storage areas with a combined 110 dock doors located on the east and west side of the building; and h. The parking requirement for the project, based on the proposed mix of office and warehouse floor areas in the proposed building is 248 parking stalls; the project will have 248 parking stalls. The trailer parking requirement, based on a ratio of one stall per dock door, is 110 trailer parking stalls; the project will have 110 trailer parking stalls; and I. As the proposed building will have a floor area of 611,573 square feet and the project site has an area of approximately 1,160,155 square feet, the calculated FAR for the project will be approximately 52.7 percent. Per Chapter 2, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan of the General Plan, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the General Industrial (GI) land use category is 60 percent; and A review and request for approval of land uses are not included in this application. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project 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 construct an industrial building of 611,573 square feet. The underlying General Plan designation is General Industrial. b. The proposed development is compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The potential land uses that would be associated with this project are consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and the properties surrounding the subject property to the west and east is General Industrial (GI) District which is intended for industrial development. The zoning of the properties to the north is Regional Related Commercial (RRC) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District, and the zoning of the properties to the south is Heavy Industrial (HI) District which is intended for commercial and industrial development respectively. C. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development complies with all standards outlined in the Development Code, including building and parking setbacks, average landscape depth, floor area ratio, parking, dock and storage area screening, landscape coverage, site planning, and architecture. E1—Pg 215 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 3 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 potential industrial land uses that would be associated with this project are consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The project site is in an area generally developed with industrial and commercial uses. There are no residential uses in the immediate vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines the applicant submitted an initial study (prepared by Psomas and peer reviewed by MIG) of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to, for example, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation/traffic, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Two letters were received in response to the circulated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. One letter was from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the other letter was from the Native American Heritage Commission. The letters were forwarded to the environmental consultant that prepared the Initial Study. The environmental consultant prepared response comments which were forwarded to the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Native American Heritage Commission. The consultant reviewed and addressed each concern with the conclusion that no further mitigation or analysis was required. The Native American Heritage Commission and the Department of Toxic Substance Control agreed with the environmental consultant's explanation and had no further comments. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission furtherfinds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other.materials which constitute the record of proceedings E1—Pg 216 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 4 upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for site plan and architectural review of a 611,573 square foot industrial building on a vacant parcel of 26.63 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District on the north side of Arrow Route, about 1,200 feet east of Interstate 15, and about 2,600 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue — APN: 0229- 021-60. Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. 2) The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the midmorning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. 3) The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. 4) Only "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds" paints (no more than 100 gram/liter of volatile organic compounds [VOC]) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. 5) Plans, specifications, and contract documents shall note that a sign shall be posted on site stating that construction workers shall not idle diesel engines in excess of five minutes. Biological 1) A pre -construction clearance survey for burrowing owls should be conducted prior to initiating ground disturbance to ensure burrowing owls remain absent from the project site. The clearance survey should be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which requires that 2 clearance surveys be conducted 14 to 30 days and 24 hours prior to any grading or vegetation removal on the project site. Pre -construction surveys can be E1—Pg 217 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 5 conducted at any time of year. If burrowing owls are observed, additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures may be required. This may include, but not be limited to, a burrowing owl passive relocation plan to be prepared and submitted to the. CDFW for review and approval prior to commencement of vegetation clearing/grubbing, grading, and construction activities on the project site. The burrowing owl relocation plan will outline methods to passively relocate any burrowing owls and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. 2) In order to avoid impacts on nesting birds and raptors (common or special status), construction activities should be scheduled during the non -breeding season (generally between September 16 and February 14 for nesting birds and between July 1 and January 31 for nesting raptors), to the extent practicable. If timing requires that construction activities be conducted during the breeding season (generally between February 15 and September 15 for birds and between February 1 and June 30 for raptors but can vary slightly from year to year based on seasonal weather conditions), a pre -construction survey or multiple surveys should be conducted by a qualified Biologist no more than 72 hours prior to disturbance to confirm the absence of active nests. If no active nests are found, no further measures would be necessary. 3) If the Biologist finds an active nest within or adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted, he or she will identify an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. The active site will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities shall be required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest (the buffer shall be 300-500 feet for raptors), unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist and (2) access and surveying shall be restricted within the buffer of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist. Construction and/or encroachment into the buffer area around a known nest shall only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity would not disturb the nest occupants. Cultural Resources 1) If In the event that cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, the Contractor shall immediately cease all earth -disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Archaeologist (Project Archaeologist), subject to approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to evaluate the significance of the find and to determine an appropriate course of action. All artifacts except for human remains and related grave goods or sacred objects belong to the Property Owner. All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the Project Archaeologist. If any artifacts of Native American E1—Pg 218 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 6 origin are discovered, the Property Owner/Developer and Project Archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the appropriate local Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the tribe. All items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling. Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or relocated at the project site shall be prepared in a manner for curation and the Project Archaeologist shall deliver the materials to an accredited curation facility approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within a reasonable amount of time. Non -Native American artifacts shall be inventoried, assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation, personal affiliation (prior ownership), function, and temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and reporting, these artifacts shall be subjected to curation or returned to the Property Owner/Developer, as deemed appropriate. Once ground -altering activities have ceased or the Project Archaeologist determines that monitoring activities are no longer necessary, monitoring activities may be discontinued following notification to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered artifacts, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered artifacts. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to archaeological and/or cultural resources. A copy of the report shall also be filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). 2) If any paleontological resources (e.g., plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Paleontologist to evaluate unanticipated discoveries and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The Paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a Paleontological Monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full time during earth -disturbing activities. • Divert earth -disturbing activities away from the immediate area of the discovery until the Paleontological Monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the Grading Contractor E1—Pg 219 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 7 shall immediately divert construction and notify the Paleontological Monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (e.g., San Bernardino County Museum). Prepare and submit a technical report describing the identification, salvage, evaluation, and treatment of all fossils discovered during grading to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the depository. Geology and Soils 1) Prior to approval of final plans and specifications for the IPT Arrow Route project, the City Engineer, or his/her designee, shall review the project plans to confirm that all recommendations in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Industrial Development, Northwest Corner of Arrow Route and Juneberry Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California (dated July 22, 2016, and prepared by NorCal Engineering) and in any future geotechnical reports have been fully and appropriately incorporated. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following geotechnical areas: • Site Grading • Removal and Recompaction • Fill Blanket • Shrinkage and Subsidence • Temporary Excavations • Foundation Design • Settlement Analysis • Lateral Resistance • ' Retaining Wall Design • Slab Design • Pavement Section Design • Utility Trench and Excavation Backfill • Corrosion Design Criteria • Expansive Soil Noise 1) Prior Noise -generating construction activities shall comply with Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code as follows: • Construction adjacent to commercial or industrial uses shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM on all days and shall not exceed 70 A -weighted decibels (dBA) at the adjacent property line.' The noise level limits in RR N01-I are assumed to be average noise levels, L,, based on Section 17.66.050.C, Exterior Noise Standards, which uses a "basic" noise level that is interpreted to be L, E1—Pg 220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 8 2) Prior to the issuance of each gradingpermit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit plans and/or specifications to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department demonstrating that vibratory rollers would not be used within 15 feet of an off -site structure and that large bulldozers or similar heavy equipment would not be used within 8 feet of an off -site building. Vibratory rollers operated in the static mode will be allowed. Transportation/Traffic 1) The following site access improvements shall be constructed as part of the project, in conjunction with project construction: Driveway 1 at Arrow Route. Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the following geometries: Southbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. Eastbound approach: One left -turn lane (storage to be accommodated within existing two-way left -turn lane) and one through lane. Westbound approach: One through lane and one shared through -right turn lane. Driveway2 at Arrow Route. Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the following geometries: Southbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. Eastbound approach: One left -turn lane (storage to be accommodated within existing two-way left -turn lane) and one through lane. Westbound approach: One through lane and one shared through -right turn lane. . Driveway 3/Private Driveway. Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the following geometries: o Northbound approach: One shared left -through lane. o Southbound approach: One shared through -right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. Driveway 4/Private Driveway. Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the following geometries: o Northbound approach: One shared left -through lane. o Southbound approach: One shared through -right turn lane. o Eastbound approach: One shared left -right turn lane. E1—Pg 221 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 9 Private Driveway/Juneberry Drive/Arrow Route. Align the private driveway with the existing Juneberry Drive at Arrow Route intersection and modify the existing traffic signal phasing on the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate permissive left turns. Also maintain the following geometrics: o Northbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane and shared through -right turn lane. o Southbound approach: Keep existing shared through - left turn lane and defacto right turn. o Eastbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane, through lane, and defacto right turn. Add a second through lane. o Westbound approach: Keep existing left -turn lane, through lane, and defacto right turn. Add a second through lane. 2) The following site -adjacent roadway improvements along Arrow Route shall be constructed as part of the project: Construct Arrow Route at its ultimate half -section width as a Major Arterial (100-foot right-of-way) between the project's western and eastern boundaries. Improvements along the project's frontage (north side of Arrow Route) would be those required by final conditions of approval for the proposed project and applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. 3) In accordance with Chapter 3.28, City -Wide' System Fees for Transportation Development, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall pay applicable Citywide transportation development impact fees to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department. These impact fees, along with the use of State and federal funds, is expected to implement various freeway, highway, and roadway projects in and near Rancho Cucamonga. 4) Prior to issuance of buildings permits, the Project Applicant shall pay its fair share fee (estimated at 3.5 percent) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the following improvement required to mitigate Horizon Year (2040) with project traffic conditions: ® Etiwanda Avenue/Arrow Route —Construct a second eastbound through lane. The fair share payment amount shall be established by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department. The timing of implementation of the improvements shall be determined by the City and the improvements, shall be completed by the City in the time frame necessary to avoid identified significant cumulative impacts. The City shall be responsible for E1—Pg 222 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-69 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP July 26, 2017 Page 10 collecting the remainder of the fees necessary to complete this improvement. 5) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval. The Traffic Control Plan shall describe safe detours and provide temporary traffic control during construction activities for the project. To reduce traffic congestion, the Plan shall include, as necessary, appropriate, and practicable, the following: temporary traffic controls (e.g., a flag person) during construction to maintain smooth traffic flow; dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site; scheduling of construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours; and consolidation of truck deliveries. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 17-0 ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of July 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: El—Pg 223 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Employee Eating Area- Provide durable street furniture in outdoor employee eating area, such as tables, chairs, waste receptacles. 2. Equipment- All ground mounted equipment and utility boxes, including transformers, back -flow devices, etc., shall be screened by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on center. This equipment shall be painted dark green. 3. Double Detector Checks 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 office corner of the building. 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) screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone or poured in -place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building. 4. Downspouts Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 5. Fencing and Gates All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. 6. Paving Decorative paving shall be provided at all vehicular access points onto the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the 25-foot parking setback line (25 feet on Arrow Route and 15 feet on "Street A") and have a width equal to the width of the driveway. Standard Conditions of Approval 7. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. Printed. 7/20/2017 vmw.CityofRC.us E1-Pg 224 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,266.25. 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. 9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 10. The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short- term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil -stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 12. 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. 13. A minimum of 20 percent of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30 percent within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 14. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 15. 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. 16. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 18. The applicant shall comply with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board and Federal EPA water requirements. 19. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi -family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. www.CityofRC.us Printed; 7/20/2017 page 2 of 18 E1—Pg 225 Project #: Project Name: Location: Project Type: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 IPT Arrow Route DC -- - 022902160-0000 Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet. 21. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17'feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 22. 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. 23. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. A detailed on -site lightingplan, 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. PMfed: 7/20/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 16 E1—Pg 226 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 32.Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 33. 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. 34. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter. 35. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 36. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The design of the trash enclosures shall incorporate the materials, finish, color, and trim used on the buildings. 37. 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. 38. Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 39. Landscape with native and/or drought -resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. Printed: 7/20/2017 � CityofRC.u6 Page 4 of 16 El—Pg 227 Project#: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 40. Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following; • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual Flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non- vegetated surfaces. 41. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll -up doors and service doors colors. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions to match main building 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. Development impact fees per the Engineering Fee Schedule will be due upon issuance of the building permit. Note: fees are subject to change annually. 3. Abandon existing easements for sewer and storm drain. Provide legal descriptions for relocated easements for plan check prior to recordation (Engineering fees apply). Each new easement shall be in favor of the entity in which the existing easements are currently in favor of. The easements shall remain private and, the City will not accept a storm drain easement. 4. The invert of the proposed catch basin on Arrow shall be low enough to accept flows from the existing catch basin on the south side of the street for future connection. 5. Developer shall install a dark fiber conduit package fronting the development. Two 4" Schedule 40 PVC conduits, along with three 1 %" innerducts in one of the 4" conduits. Per City Standard 145. Printed; 7/20/2017 www.cltyofRc.u6 Page 6 of 16 El—Pg 228 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 6. Arrow Route frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Major Highway' standards, as required: A. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights and signing & striping as required. a. Align "A" Street with private driveway to the south. Remove driveway approach for the east adjacent property, and reconstruct curb and gutter.. Work with owner of the lot to the east to locate new access off of Street. b. Provide a signing and striping plan. Arrow Route to be restriped to 2 westbound lanes. B. Provide 9500 Lumen HPSV-equivalent LED street lights, as required. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. C. Modify traffic signal and equipment at the intersection of "A" Street and Arrow Route and, provide any necessary easement to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for traffic signal equipment. D. Curb ramps shall comply with the latest ADA standards 7. "A" Street full -width improvements to be in accordance City "Industrial Collector" standards, as required: A. Provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, and signing & striping as required. Developer shall be reimbursed from in -lieu fees, up to the deposit amount, collected from adjacent property to the east. B. Provide access to "A" Street for adjacent property to the east. C. Driveways shall be in accordance with City Driveway Policy. D. Provide 5800 Lumen HPSV—equivalent LED street lights, as required. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. E. The street is required to match grade at the north property line for future access for the north adjacent property. F. provide wood barricades with reflectors per city standards at the north end of the street. 8. If the applicant chooses to retain public storm water on -site, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acceptance of public flows and maintenance of the proposed storm drain basin. Standard Conditions of Approval 9. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 10. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets: 66 total feet on "A" Street 50 total feet on Arrow Hwy (half -width) 11. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Printed: 7/20/2017 www.Cityol`RC.us Page 6 of 16 E1—Pg 229 Project#: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited. Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a deposit reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the deposit amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site, www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs. 13. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to Building Permit issuance if no map is involved. 14. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts 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. 15. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: "All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans." If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. 16. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. Printed: 7/20/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 7 0(ifi El—Pg 230 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 17. 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, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch PVC with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. 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. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 3) All public improvements shown on the plans shall be constructed to City Standards. Printed: 7/20/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 6 or 16 E1—Pg 231 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: Project Type: -- - 022902160-0000 Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 18.Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend public landscape plans are required, tree installation landscape improvement plans. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size city. and standards as follows. The completed on the title page of the street improvement item within the construction legend stating: on Sheet _ (typically Sheet 1)." Where in those areas shall be per the public 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 City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 19.Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersects report shall be furnished to the require backfill soil amendments, by the Engineering Services o installed per City Standards in 21. Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. 22. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 23. 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. Easements shall be provided as required. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 7/20/2017 Page 9 of 16 El—Pg 232 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 24. 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 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. 25. Provide evidence that Foothill Marketplace has approved the relocation of it's storm drain facilities, and that they have entered into a new Agreement Regarding Easement and Grant License with the City. Although the City will not accept the storm drain easement, the City will fulfill it's obligations as required in the agreement per CUP 90-37 and PM 13724. 26. A final drainage study shall 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. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes; local ordinances and Standards. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers as required by the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and building must be in accordance to the State of CA and ADA regulations. Smoke Hatches must be installed to meet the Travel distances in excess of 250'. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. Printed: 7/20/2017 w .CltyofRC.us Page 10 of 16 E1—Pg 233 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 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 the Building and Safety Official 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 written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or 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 from 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 comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The 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 Building and Safety Official. 14. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 16. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 16. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been deemed "Acceptable". Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official. 17. 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". w CilyofRC.us Printed: 7/20/2017 Page 11 of 16 E1—Pg 234 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 18. 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; ii) 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 (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils 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. 19. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off -site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). This shall be shown in the typical sections of the grading and drainage plan. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 21. Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, 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 structures and drainage of the site. 22. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on -site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The 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. 23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the surface storm water devices) shall have a construction note/detail for a 60-inch high basin designed to hold 18-inches of water or greater in depth. adopted California Building Code requirements. retention basins, (storm water BMP barrier to be installed around each The barrier shall meet the current www.CiryofRC.us Printed : 7/20/2017 page 12 of 16 E1—Pg 235 Project#: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 24. A review of the conceptual grading and drainage plan and the preliminary water quality management plan shows that it is the intent of the engineer of record to drain the surface storm water flows to a retention basin. The basin shall be designed to accept multiple storm events (100-year storm event and Antecedent Moisture Condition 3) using the methodology outlined in the current adopted San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. 25. 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. 26. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) shall approve all plans that impact their easement, including utilities, storm drain, slopes, and street trees and landscaping prior to issuance of a grading permit. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring Metropolitan Water District Operations Maintenance Branch to be notified two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of their easement. 27. A permit shall be obtained from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for any work within their right-of-way, including grading prior to issuance of a grading permit. 28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written comments from MWD regarding site design restrictions within their easement and provide a copy of said comments to the Building and Safety Official for review. 29. 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 water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 30, Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 31. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed "Acceptable". Prior to the issuance of a'grading permit a final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official. 32. 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 Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 33. 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. 34. 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 Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 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. w .CilyofRC.us Printed: 7/20/2017 Page 13 of 16 E1—Pg 236 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 38. Prior to the start of landscaping operations, the landscape architect and the landscape contractor shall provide a sample of the weed fabric barrier to the Project Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The weed barrier shall be permeable. 39. The final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP's). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document. 40. 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 shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the "Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP" section of the final project -specific water quality management plan. Printed: 7/20/2017 1"/'/' CityofRC.uS Page 14 of 16 E 1—Pg 237 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 41. 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 VII — 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". 42. 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". 43. 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 Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 44. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate 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 shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan document. Printed: 7/20/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 16 E1—Pg 238 Project #: DRC2016-00726 DRC2016-00727, DRC2016-00728 Project Name: IPT Arrow Route DC Location: -- - 022902160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 45. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP 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 Plan Requirements).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 quality 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,OOOsgft 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. I. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. vnvw.CilyofRC.us Printed: 7/20I2017 page ifi of 16 E1—Pg 239 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 26, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planneo`� INITIATED BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES — A request to revoke Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, approved in error on November 9, 2016, for a request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and -20. On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for DRC2007-00951. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES — A request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007- 00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) to allow for the demolition of two residential structures, both previously conditioned for off -site relocation, for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201- 19 and -20. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15162 which does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Initial Study. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: Adopt the attached Resolution approving Design Review Modification Revocation DRC2017-00480, thereby revoking approval of Design Review Modification DRC2016- 00345. E2—E3Pg 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 & DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481-BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 2 • Adopt the attached Resolution with Conditions approving Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481. PROJECT REVIEW AND BACKGROUND: The proposed applications were originally scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing to be held on June 28, 2017. Due to an error in public noticing, following staff's recommendation (Exhibit C), the Planning Commission continued the review of the applications, and the applications were then re -advertised for the July 26, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The Biane Winery site is a complex comprised of 15 buildings/structures, associated equipment, and 3 single-family residences located on 2 parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres (Exhibit E). The 15 buildings and structures consist of the winery building, bottling plant/warehouse, grape crushing building and grape pits, distillery and shops, bonded warehouse, sherry room, dry wine bottling, winemaker's residence, caretaker residence, a restroom, cooperage shop, foreman's residence, chemical room, and a lunch shelter. The land uses on surrounding properties and the General Plan zoning designations of the site and surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Biane Winery Mixed Use Mixed Use MU District Santa Fe Railway, Single- Low Medium (LM) North Family Residential Low Medium Residential District and Santa Fe Railway South Industrial/Commercial General Industrial General Industrial (GI) Buildin s District East Industrial/Commercial General Industrial General Industrial (GI) Buildings District West Industrial/Commercial General Industrial General Industrial (GI) Buildings District GENERAL: A. Background — Design Review DRC2007-00951: On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Design Review DRC2007-00951 (Exhibit G) for a project at the Biane Winery that included the demolition of several buildings, including the bottling plant/warehouse, dry wine bottling room, cooperage shop, restroom, lunch shelter, and foreman's residence buildings, to allow room for the construction of a 122,304 square foot industrial warehouse building. A Cultural Resources Impacts Assessment prepared for the project determined that several buildings (including the cooperage shop, foreman's residence, restroom, and lunch shelter) were non -contributors to the site and could be demolished; however, two residential buildings (the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence) were determined to be contributors to the significance of the winery. B. Background — Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345: On November 9, 2016, at the request of the applicant (Exhibit D), the Planning Commission reviewed a revised Cultural Resource Impact Assessment (LSA, Feb 2016) for the site that determined the two residential buildings to be less significant (described in further detail in Section C of this E2—E3Pg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 & DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481-BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 3 report) and approved Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 (Exhibits A & B) to delete two applicable conditions from Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 for DRC2007-00951. This modification deleted the following conditions: Planning Department Condition No. 7: The costs to relocate the two contributing residences shall be borne by the owner. The owner shall notify the City in writing once the relocation plan has been finalized. Planning Department Condition No. 8: Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at a minimum an 8-inch by 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. Following the approval of this Design Review Modification application, staff determined that the two conditions that were deleted were also related to a mitigation measure in the project's Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The deletion of the mitigation measure should have been included in the analysis of Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345. Also, deleting the mitigation measure required the preparation of an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, the addendum should have been included in the project description, advertising, and public hearing notifications. ANALYSIS: A. Design Review Modification Revocation DRC2017-00480: To correct these errors, approval of Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 must be revoked and replaced by Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481 (summarized below). Development Code Section 17.14.110 provides procedures for securing revocation of a previously approved land use entitlement. The approving authority for the original entitlement shall consider the revocation of the same entitlement. Revocations have the effect of terminating the entitlement and denying the privileges granted by the original approval, where as a modification allows for a change to the entitlement's operational characteristics. B. Reviewing Authority Action and Findings: A land use entitlement or permit may be revoked or modified if any of the following findings can be made: Circumstances under which the entitlement or permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no longer be met. This finding is not applicable. The circumstances underwhich Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345was granted have not been changed by the applicant. 2. The entitlement or permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the entitlement or permit. This finding is not applicable. The entitlement permitted under Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 was not issued on the basis of any misrepresentation by the applicant. E2—E3Pg 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 & DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481-BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 4 3. One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated. This finding is not applicable. Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2016. None of the applicable conditions of approval have been fulfilled, nor have they been violated. 4. The use or structure for which the permit was granted has ceased to exist or has lost its legal nonconforming use status. This finding is not applicable. Use of the project site has not changed since Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 was approved and the site is not considered to be legal nonconforming. 5. The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of any code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute. The approval of DRC2007-00951 included an environmental assessment with an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The approval of DRC2016-00345 relied on CEQA Section 15162 where no subsequent Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. However, because the two applicable conditions of approval were also mitigation measures of the project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, revising them required an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, not just a revision to the projects conditions of approval, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 6. The improvementluse allowed by the permit has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a public nuisance. This finding is not applicable. The improvements permitted under Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 have not become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor has the manner of operation constituted or created a public nuisance. C. Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481: Per the Staff Report for Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 (Exhibit A), following the Planning Commission's approval of DRC2007-00951, the applicant researched the feasibility of relocating the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence off -site. The applicant was unable to find appropriate lots for the relocation of the houses and their current structural condition would make moving the houses difficult. As a result, the applicant has requested deleting the applicable Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures from Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 (Exhibit H), which state: Planning Department Condition No. 7: The costs to relocate the two contributing residences shall be borne by the owner. The owner shall notify the City in writing once the relocation plan has been finalized. Planning Department Condition No. 8: Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at a minimum an 8-inch by 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. E2—E3Pg 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 & DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481-BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 5 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1: Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at a minimum an 8-inch by 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. This would preserve a historical tie between the residences and the winery, mitigating the loss of their on -site historical association. To support the proposed modification to the Conditions of approval the applicant contacted LSA Associates who prepared the Cultural Resources Assessment in 2008 and the cultural resources Impacts Assessment in 2009 for DRC2007-00951. A Review of Biane Winery Impacts Assessment (LSA, February 2016) (Exhibit F) provides further review in consideration of a modification to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures applicable to the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence. That assessment concludes that the two residences derive their significance solely from their association with the winery. They are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood - framed houses and if they are relocated off -site, they would be out of context and their significance as contributing resources would be lost. Without the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence, the Winery would retain its National Register eligibility, and therefore, demolition of these structures would not be a significant impact to the historic property. The LSA memorandum recommends that prior to removal of any contributing buildings or features, the Biane Winery should be documented in a manner similar to Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level III. Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08, Planning Department Condition No. 5 and Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2 requires HABS Level III documentation prior to the demolition or relocation of any contributing features of the Biane Winery, so no modification of this Condition of Approval or Mitigation Measure is necessary. D. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 22, 2014, in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007- 00951. With respect to DRC2017-00480, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation E2—E3Pg 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 & DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481-BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 6 measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less -than -significant. With respect to DRC2017-00481, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the City prepared an Addendum (Exhibit 1) to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration because only minortechnical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration have occurred. A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required because there are no new significant or severe effects; there are no substantial changes in circumstance with respect to the project; and, there is no new information of substantial importance that was not known or could have reasonably been known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted. An addendum to the previously approved MND is appropriate in this case because a minor technical change to the project description in the original MND would be sufficient and there is no evidence that any of the conditions that would require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration are present. Firstly, there is no indication that the minor changes to the project will create new significant environmental effects or cause a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The project includes revising Planning Commission Resolution No. 14- 08 Planning Department Conditions of Approval No.'s 7 and 8 and Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1 to allow for the demolition of two residential structures. Revising the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures does not amount to a major change and would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the MND. Secondly, there have been no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken. The characteristics of the site and the surrounding properties are similar to those previously existing, and do not indicate that there will be new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Finally, the City has received no new information of substantial importance that was unknown or could not have been known previously that indicates the project will have any significant effects not discussed in the MND, that any previously identified impacts will be substantially more severe, that any mitigation measure previously found infeasible would now be feasible, or that any mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. All remaining mitigation measures established for the original project will be addressed during the plan check, construction, and inspection of the project site during development. Additional or different mitigation measures are not required. In summary, the proposed project is a modification to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to allow for the demolition of two residential structures on the Biane Winery site whose development was thoroughly analyzed for environmental impacts and for which mitigation measures were established. Although the proposed project involves a modification to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to allow for the demolition of two residential structures, there are no substantial changes in the project, its circumstances, or the information on hand that would suggest that the previous environmental review is inadequate. E2—E3Pg 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 & DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481-BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 7 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code. General Plan Goal LU-16 addresses the protection of historic resources and the deletion of the subject Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measure supports the preservation of the Biane Winery and retains its National Register eligibity. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax, a percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. Ultimately, when redevelopment of the project site is completed, the overall project will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The developers also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees applicable to the projects. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the overall project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A — DRC2016-00345 Planning Commission Staff Report November 9, 2016 Exhibit B — Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-57 Exhibit C — DRC2017-00480 and DRC2017-00481 Planning Commission Staff Reports June 28, 2017 (Continuances) Exhibit D — Letter from Applicant, May 2, 2016 Exhibit E — Impacts Assessment — Aerial Showing Contributors and Non -contributors Exhibit F — Review of Biane Winery Impacts Assessment, LSA, February 12, 2016 Exhibit G — DRC2007-00951 Planning. Commission Staff Report, January 22, 2014 Exhibit H — Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 Exhibit I — Addendum Draft Resolution of Approval for DRC2017-00480 Revoking Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481 CB:TG/Is E2—E3Pg 7 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] E2-E3Pg 8 STAFF REPORT I!MCyV4rN 10 A Date: November 9, 2016 ' To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Candyce Burnett, City Planner RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner Subject: DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2016-00345 - BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for DRC2007-00951. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Design Review Modification DRC2016- 00345 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. ANALYSIS A. Site Characteristics: The project site is a winery complex comprised of 15 buildings/structures, associated equipment, and 3 single-family residences located on 2 parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres (Exhibit B). The 15 buildings and structures consist of the winery building, bottling plant/warehouse, grape crushing building and grape pits, distillery and shops, bonded warehouse, sherry room, dry wine bottling, winemaker's residence, caretaker residence, a restroom, cooperage shop, foreman's residence, chemical room, and a lunch shelter. The project site is a rectangular configuration consisting of two separate parcels. The north to south dimensions are approximately 568 feet and 856 feet east to west. Most of the northern portion of the site is occupied by winery buildings. To the south, east, and west are existing commercial/industrial buildings. To the north is the Santa Fe Railway and residential development north of the tracks. A rail line runs north to south just west of the project site. There is also a spur line that runs along the northern side of the winery. B. Background: On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission approved DRC2007-00951 (Exhibit D). That application proposed a partial -build option that would result in the demolition of several buildings on the western 6.51 acre parcel, including the Bottling Plant/Warehouse, Dry Wine Bottling Room, cooperage shop, restroom, lunch shelter, and foreman's residence buildings to allow room for the construction of a 122,304 square foot industrial warehouse building; the eastern 3.9 acre parcel was not a part of the project. The cultural resources Impacts Assessment identified that the cooperage shop, foreman's residence, restroom, and lunch shelter were determined to be non -contributors to the site and could be demolished 1 AM E2—E3Pg 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00345 - BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES November 9, 2016 Page 2 (Exhibit B). Two residential buildings, the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence, were determined to be Contributors and were conditioned to be relocated off -site with a plaque affixed to each residence identifying its original location and significance to the Biane Winery (Exhibit E). C. Proposed Revision: Following Planning Commission approval of DRC2007-00951, the applicant researched the feasibility of relocating the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence and determined that it was difficult to find appropriate lots for the relocation and that the structural condition of the houses would make moving them difficult. As a result, the applicant has requested deleting the applicable Conditions from Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 (Exhibit E), the conditions state: Planning Department Condition No. 7: The costs to relocate the two contributing residences shall be borne by the owner. The owner shall notify the City in writing once the relocation plan has been finalized. Planning Department Condition No. 8: Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at a minimum an 8-inch by 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. To support the proposed modification to the Conditions of approval the applicant contacted LSA Associates who prepared the Cultural Resources Assessment in 2008 and the Impacts Assessment in 2009 for DRC2007-00951. A memorandum prepared by LSA Associates (Exhibit C) provides further review of the Biane Winery Impacts Assessment in consideration of a modification to Conditions of Approval applicable to the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence. The memo concludes that the two residences derive their significance solely from their association with the winery. They are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood -framed houses and if they are relocated off -site, they would be out of context and their significance as contributing resources would be lost. Without the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence, the Winery would retain its National Register eligibility, and therefore the demolition of these structures would not be a significant impact to the historic property. The LSA memorandum recommends that prior to removal of any contributing buildings or features the Biane Winery should be documented in a manner similar to Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level III. Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08, Planning Department Condition No. 5 currently requires HABS Level III documentation prior to the demolition or relocation of any contributing features of the Biane Winery, so no modification of this condition is necessary. D. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 22, 2014, in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007- 00951. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No substantial changesare proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the E2—E3Pg 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00345 - BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES November 9, 2016 Page 3 circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less -than -significant. CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Respectfully submitted, C"" &'� Candyce Burnett City Planner CB:TG/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Letter from Applicant, May 2, 2016 Exhibit.B - Impacts Assessment — Aerial Showing Contributors and Non - contributors Exhibit C - LSA Associates Memorandum — Review of Biane Winery Impacts Assessment, February 12, 2016 Exhibit D - DRC2007-00951 Planning Commission Staff Report, January 22, 2014 Exhibit E - Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 E2—E3Pg11 May 2, 2016 Mr. Thomas Grahn City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Biane Family Properties, Revision to Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 Dear Mr. Grahn: On January 22, 2014 Biane Family Properties received Planning Commission approval of the Environmental Assessment and Development Review DRC- 2007-00951 with Resolution 14-08 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00475 with Resolution No. 14-09 for the Biane Business Park. Planning Department Conditions of Approval 7 and 8 within Resolution No. 14-08 requires the relocation of two residences and plaques indentifying the relocated residences. Since that time, Biane Family Properties has researched the feasibility of relocating the residences. They have determined that it is difficult to find appropriate lots for the relocation and the structural condition of the houses would make moving the houses very difficult. In an effort to find an acceptable solution, I reached out to LSA Associates, Inc., who prepared the Cultural Resources Assessment in 2008 and the Impacts Assessment in 2009 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Casey Tibbet, Senior Cultural Resources Manager, and LSA's HABS photographer came out to the site. They determined that the two residences derived their significance solely from their association with the winery. The are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood frame houses dating to the early part of the 20`h century. Furthermore, they have undergone remodeling and "updating" over the years, so almost all of the historic features on the interior of the residences have been removed. If they are located off site, they will be out of context and their significance as contributing resources will be lost. Without the residences, the Winery would retain its National Register eligibility; therefore, demolition of the residences would not be a significant impact to the historic property. At LSA's recommendation, Baine Family Properties agrees to complete HABS Level III documentation prior to demolition. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. S" cerely yours Jary kroft Project Manager EXHIBIT A Pc I11a17-01t1 E2—E3Pg12 a EXH181T B :Y d ❑ iJ l 5 '. E2-E3Pg 13 ASSOCIATES, 1500 IOWA AVENUE. SUITE L J Al RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92307 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 12, 2016 BERKELEY IRVINE 931 731.9310 TEL CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN 931.791 Jl]] FAX FRESNO PT RICHMOND SAN LUIS OBISPO To: Michael Biane Biane Family Properties, LLC FROM: Casey Tibbet, M.A LSA Associates, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Biane Winery Impacts Assessment (LSA Project No. BIW1601) LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is under contract to Biane Family Properties, LLC to review the cultural resources assessment and subsequent impacts assessment prepared for the Biane Winery by LSA in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The purpose of this review is to provide a preliminary recommendation regarding the potential impacts to the significance of the winery based on recent changes to the proposed project. More specifically, the current project proposes demolition, rather than off -site relocation, of two residences in the project area. The two houses, which are known as the winemaker's residence and the office/caretaker residence, have been identified as buildings that contribute the significance of the winery. In order to understand the significance of the winery and manner in which the residences contribute to that significance, LSA carefully reviewed the previous reports and the recommendations associated with the two houses. The results of this review are discussed below. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS 2008 Cultural Resources Assessment According to the 2008 report prepared by LSA, in 2001 the Biane Winery was evaluated as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under criterion A for its significant associations with the history of viticulture in Rancho Cucamonga and under criterion C as a good example of the Mission Revival architectural style as applied to a winery. LSA reevaluated the property in 2008 in conjunction with a proposal to demolish all buildings and features to facilitate construction of a 239,270-square foot office and warehouse. LSA concurred with the 2001 evaluation and also found the winery eligible for designation as a Landmark under the local ordinance. In addition, the report clearly identified contributing and non-contributing elements and provided project recommendations. Of the 15 buildings and features in the project area, 10 were identified as contributors to the significance of the winery. These included the winery building, bottling plant and warehouse, grape crushing building and grape pits, distillery and shops, bonded warehouse, sherry room, dry wine bottling, winemaker's residence, office/caretaker residence, and other miscellaneous elements. Non- contributing elements included the restroom, cooperage shop, foreman's residence, chemical room, and lunch shelter. (2112P2016) RAB1W 1601Wemo.dccx PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 1 DESIGN EXHIBIT C % )1111a0)6 E2—E3Pg 14 Ls % >ss0('I \I'CS. IC('. Project recommendations included continued adaptive reuse of the winery or a partial -build alternative that would only require relocation of the winemaker's residence. The report indicated that if the winemaker's residence was relocated off site or demolished, the west wall of the bottling plant and/or the cooperage shop exterior should be restored pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for Restoration (SOIS). Finally, if full demolition was approved, the report recommended documentation of the property pursuant to the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level 1 requirements and noted that this would not mitigate the project to a less than significant level. 2009 Impacts Assessment for Revised Project In 2009, LSA prepared an impacts assessment for a revised project that included the demolition and relocation of some of the contributing buildings in order to facilitate construction of a distribution center. More specifically, the bottling plant and warehouse and the dry wine bottling room would be demolished and the winemaker's residence and office/caretaker residence would be relocated off site. Other non-contributing buildings and features would also be demolished. During the preparation of this report, LSA had to access to some of the Biane family's private historic photographs from the 1930s through the 1950s. These photographs revealed that many of the winemaking activities, including bottling activities, were originally carried out in the main winery building. In addition, it was clear that the bottling plant and warehouse was originally constructed for use as a cannery sometime after 1930 and has since sustained numerous alterations, retaining a lower degree of integrity than the rest of the winery. The 2009 impacts assessment took this new information into consideration and resulted in the following summarized conclusions/ recommendations regarding the contributors: • Demolition of the bottling plant and warehouse and/or the dry wine bottling room: Removal of either or both of these contributors would not reduce Biane Winery's historical associations (criterion A) to the extent that the property would no longer be historically significant. Although each of these contributors represents a functioning part of winery, removal of either or both would not diminish the significance of the winery as a property type (criterion C). • Off -site relocation of the residences: The two contributing residences do not represent functional aspects of the winery as a property type. Therefore, their off -site relocation would not diminish the winery's significance under criterion C. However, the residences have significant historical ties to the winery (criterion A) and loss of those ties would be a significant impact. • Cumulative Impacts. The removal of four contributing buildings could potentially result in an impact to the setting of the winery. However, the core complex of contributors would remain intact and would retain integrity of location, design, feeling, association, materials, and workmanship. Therefore, the significance of the winery would not be significantly diminished by the loss of these contributors. • Recommendations: The 2009 report indicates that the following are not mitigation measures: o Affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences: The plaques would identify their original locations and historical associations with Biane Winery. This would preserve a historical tie between the residences and the winery, reducing the loss of their on -site historical association. (211116) R:\BIw1601\h1emo.docx E2—E3Pg 15 LY\ %SSOC I% rl4; IN C. o Complete Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS III) prior to demolition or relocation: This documentation consists of written data discussing the history and development of the property; a site plan; large -format photographs; and, if available, copies of treasured drawings, historic photographs, and newspaper articles. Copies of the HABS III report should be submitted to the City and various other archives. The 2009 report also considered the potential impact of the proposed new construction on the significance of the winery. The report concluded that the proposed new construction would not destroy any historic materials that characterize the property and that it would be differentiated from, but compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the older construction, thereby protecting the historic integrity of the winery and its environment. It was specifically noted that the architecture would be subordinate in detail and that the building would be set back approximately 15 feet from the main winery building, preserving the existing view of the winery from 8" Street. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS As previously stated, LSA was asked to review the previous reports for Biane Winery in order to determine whether the demolition of two contributing residences would result in changes to the historic significance of the property. Based on the information and analysis provided in the 2008 and 2009 reports, the two residences derive their significance solely from their association with the winery. They are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood -framed houses dating to the early part of the 20" century. If they are relocated off site, they will be out of context and their significance as contributing resources will be lost. This is true even if plaques are installed in an effort to convey their former association with the winery. Without the residences, the winery would retain its National Register eligibility. It would still be clearly identifiable as a winery and would retain a number of contributing buildings and features. Therefore, demolition of the contributing residences would not be a significant impact to the historic property (winery). With this in mind, LSA recommends the following: • Complete HABS-like documentation: Prior to removal of any contributing buildings or features, the Biane Winery should be documented in a manner similar to HABS Level III by a qualified professional. This documentation should consist of the following: o A site plan depicting all extant features on the winery property. The site plan may use a current aerial photograph as a base and must include a scale, north arrow, and legend identifying the various buildings and features (similar to Figure 2 of the 2009 report). o Large -format, archival quality, black -and -white photographs of exterior elevations, interior views, character -defining features, and context views. o If available, copies of historic site plans, elevation drawings, floor plans, measured drawings, historic photographs, and newspaper articles. o Written documentation discussing the history and development of the property. (The report prepared by LSA in 2008 will satisfy the requirements for the written data.) o The HABS-like documentation should be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Biane Family Properties, LLC, and the Paul A. Biane branch of the Rancho Cucamonga Public (2112116) RABIw1601kN1emo.docx E2—E3Pg 16 LS\ %SSO('I%Il S. INC Library. Copies of the photographic negatives should be included in the documentation for the City and Biane Family Properties, LLC. The HABS-like documentation will capture the winery at a specific moment in time before any of the existing contributing buildings and features are removed. The interior and exterior photographs of the buildings proposed to be removed will preserve a record of their appearances, functions, and unique features and the related maps and other data will place them in context. Having this documentation available at various repositories will ensure that it will remain part of the historic record and available to future scholars. (2/ 12/ 16) RABIw 16O NMemo.docx E2—E3Pg 17 RESOLUTION NO. 16-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2016-00345 - A REQUEST TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRC2007-00951 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.14-08) FOR THE BIANE WINERY, A COMPLEX COMPRISED OF FIFTEEN (15) BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES AND THREE (3) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES LOCATED ON TWO (2) PARCELS WITH A COMBINED AREA OF 10.41 ACRES IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN HERMOSA AND ARCHIBALD AVENUES; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-201-19 AND 20. A. Recitals 1. Jary Cockroft, for Biane Family Properties, filed an application for Design Review DRC2016-00345, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd of January, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved DRC2007-00951. 3. On the 9th of November, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the 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 Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on November 9, 2016, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a request to modify the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 to allow for the demolition of the wine maker's residence and caretaker residence'located at the Biane Winery; and b. The subject property is located in the General Industrial (GI) District; and C. The property to the north is in the Low Medium (LM) Residential District and is developed with the Santa Fe Railway and residential development north of the tracks; and, the properties to the south, east, and west are in the General Industrial (GI) Residential District and are developed with industrial and commercial buildings; and EAxn11BIT B E2—E3Pg 18 PLANNING COMMISSION .ESOLUTION NO. 16-57 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICAITON DRC2016-00345 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES November 9, 2016 Page 2 d. A memorandum prepared by LSA Associates providing for further review of the Biane Winery Impacts Assessment (February 12, 2016) concludes that the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence derive their significance solely from their association with the winery. They residences are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood -framed houses and if they are relocated off -site, they would be out of context and their significance as contributing resources would be lost; and e. Demolition of the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence would not affect the National Register eligibility of the Biane Winery, and the demolition of these structures would not be a significant impact to the historic property. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use 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. General Plan Policy LU-16.1 incorporates historic preservation principles into the City's project review process with the goal of minimizing potential impacts to historic resources when developing and enforcing land use; and b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or the improvements in the vicinity. The two residences are interior to the project site and their demolition will not impact the public health or properties or improvements in the vicinity; and C. The application, which contemplates operation of the proposed use, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The demolition of the two residential structures and the ultimate development of the project site will comply with all applicable development standards of the Development Code. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 22, 2014, in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007-00951. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less -than -significant. E2—E3Pg 19 PLANNING COMPJISSIO�...ESOLUTION NO. 16-57 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICAITON DRC2016-00345 - BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES November 9, 2016 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and the conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application, subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: (/ Francisco Oaxaca,-C-haaiirman ATTEST:+ a dyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of November 2016, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, OAXACA, MACIAS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MUNOZ, WIMBERLY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE E2-E3Pg 20, Z rJ7 t;onuttlons of Approval .R Nrrw ( 11 CAtioxul Community Development Department Project #: DRC2016-00345 Project Name: Design Review- Commercial Industrial -Modification Location: Project Type: 1 U013 8TH ST - 020920119-0000 ueslgn Review Modification ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. All applicable conditions of approval contained in Planning DRC2007-00951, shall apply. 2. Planning Department Conditions of Approval Nos. 7 and Resolution No. 14-08, are deleted in their entirety. Commission Resolution No. 14-08 for 8, contained in Planning Commission 3. Following appropriate HABS Level III documentation, the Wine Maker's Residence and the Caretaker Residence may be demolished along with other previously determined non-contributing structures on the project site. 4. The cement sidewalk extending north from the Biane Winery at the Vermouth Cellar door, across the historic spur line and up to the Eighth Street right-of-way shall be removed. Extreme care shall be exercised to protect the historic spur line from the careless or willful damage or destruction to the rail line during the cement removal process. Standard Conditions of Approval 5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 6. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, 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. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. 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 or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 8. 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. 9. 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 Development Code regulations. Printed 1012512016 vNNi.CltyofRC,us E2—E3Pg 21 Project Name: Design Review- Commercial Industrial -Modification Location: 10013 8TH ST - 020920119-0000 Project Type: Design Review Modification ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. An access ramp to the street in front of the building has been constructed without a permit. Remove the access ramp and replace curb and gutter back to their original configuration prior to Engineering approval of building permit required per DRC2007-00951. A permit from the engineering department shall be obtained prior to commencement of construction within the right-of-way. Printed, 1012512016 www.CityofRC.uS Page 2 of 2 E2—E3Pg 22 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planne � INITIATED BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner �� SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 - BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to revoke Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, approved in error on November 9, 2016, for a request to revise the conditions of approval for ORC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No,14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for DRC2007-00951. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration, RECOMMENDATION: Due to an error in the project title of a related application (Design Review DRC2017-00481), staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Design Review DRC2017- 00480 to the July 26, 2017 meeting date. The project will be re -advertised, noticed and posted. CB:TG/Is EXHIBIT C E2-E3Pg 23 �•� �f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .. REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner: INITIATED BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00481-SIANEFAMILY PROPERTIES -A request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) to allow for the retention of two existing residential structures on site for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15164 which does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Initial Study. RECOMMENDATION: Due to an error in the project title, staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Design Review DRC2017-00481 to the July 26, 2017 meeting date. The project will be re -advertised, noticed, and posted with the correct title. -31111re7m E2-E3Pg 24 May 2, 2016 Mr. Thomas Grahn City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Biane Family Properties, Revision to Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 Dear Mr. Grahn: On January 22, 2014 Biane Family Properties received Planning Commission approval of the Environmental Assessment and Development Review DRC- 2007-00951 with Resolution 14-08 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00475 with Resolution No. 14-09 for the Biane Business Park. Planning Department Conditions of Approval 7 and 8 within Resolution No. 14-08 requires the relocation of two residences and plaques indentifying the relocated residences. Since that time, Biane Family Properties has researched the feasibility of relocating the residences. They have determined that it is difficult to find appropriate lots for the relocation and the structural condition of the houses would make moving the houses very difficult. In an effort to find an acceptable solution, I reached out to LSA Associates, Inc., who prepared the Cultural Resources Assessment in 2008 and the Impacts Assessment in 2009 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Casey Tibbet, Senior Cultural Resources Manager, and LSA's HABS photographer came out to the site. They determined that the two residences derived their significance solely from their association with the winery. The are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood frame houses dating to the early part of the 20th century. Furthermore, they have undergone remodeling and "updating" over the years, so almost all of the historic features on the interior of the, residences have been removed. If they are located off site, they will be out of context and their significance as contributing resources will be lost. Without the residences, the Winery would retain its National Register eligibility; therefore, demolition of the residences would not be a significant impact to the historic property. At LSA's recommendation, Baine Family Properties agrees to complete HABS Level III documentation prior to demolition. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. S" cerely yours Jary *kroft Project Manager EXHIBIT E2—E3Pg 25 E SMs � N a EXHIBIT E E2-E3Pg 26 L A I LSA ASSOCIATES, AVENUE, INC. \150E SID AVENUE, SUITE 200 R R'ERS10 E. CALIFORNIA 92?07 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 12,2016 BERKELEY IRVINE 951.781.9310 TEL CARLSBAD PAL%ISPRINGS ROCKLIN 951.781.4277 FAX FRESNO PT. RICIIMOND SAN LUIS OBISPO To: Michael Biane Biane Family Properties, LLC FROM: Casey Tibbet, M.A LSA Associates, Inc. SURFEET: Review of Biane Winery Impacts Assessment (LSA Project No. BIW 1601) LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is under contract to Biane Family Properties, LLC to review the cultural resources assessment and subsequent impacts assessment prepared for the Biane Winery by LSA in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The purpose of this review is to provide a preliminary recommendation regarding the potential impacts to the significance of the winery based on recent changes to the proposed project. More specifically, the current project proposes demolition, rather than off -site relocation, of two residences in the project area. The two houses, which are known as the winemaker's residence and the office/caretaker residence, have been identified as buildings that contribute the significance of the winery. In order to understand the significance of the winery and manner in which the residences contribute to that significance, LSA carefully reviewed the previous reports and the recommendations associated with the two houses. The results of this review are discussed below. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS 2008 Cultural Resources Assessment According to the 2008 report prepared by LSA, in 2001 the Biane Winery was evaluated as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under criterion A for its significant associations with the history of viticulture in Rancho Cucamonga and under criterion C as a good example of the Mission Revival architectural style as applied to a winery. LSA reevaluated the property in 2008 in conjunction with a proposal to demolish all buildings and features to facilitate construction of a 239,270-square foot office and warehouse. LSA concurred with the 2001 evaluation and also found the winery eligible for designation as a Landmark under the local ordinance. In addition, the report clearly identified contributing and non-contributing elements and provided project recommendations. Of the 15 buildings and features in the project area, 10 were identified as contributors to the significance of the winery. These included the winery building, bottling plant and warehouse, grape crushing building and grape pits, distillery and shops, bonded warehouse, sherry room, dry wine bottling, winemaker's residence, office/caretaker residence, and other miscellaneous elements. Non- contributing elements included the restroom, cooperage shop, foreman's residence, chemical room, and lunch shelter. (2/12/2016) RABRV160IVNemo.docx PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN EXHIBIT F E2—E3Pg 27 LSA ASSOCIA FEE. IT C. Project recommendations included continued adaptive reuse of the winery or a partial -build alternative that would only require relocation of the winemaker's residence. The report indicated that if the winemaker's residence was relocated off site or demolished, the west wall of the bottling plant and/or the cooperage shop exterior should be restored pursuant to the Secretaly ofthe Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for Restoration (SOIS). Finally, if full demolition was approved, the report recommended documentation of the property pursuant to the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level 1 requirements and noted that this would not mitigate the project to a less than significant level. 2009 Impacts Assessment for Revised Project In 2009, LSA prepared an impacts assessment for a revised project that included the demolition and relocation of some of the contributing buildings in order to facilitate construction of a distribution center. More specifically, the bottling plant and warehouse and the dry wine bottling room would be demolished and the winemaker's residence and office/caretaker residence would be relocated off site. Other non-contributing buildings and features would also be demolished. During the preparation of this report, LSA had to access to some of the Biane family's private historic photographs from the 1930s through the 1950s. These photographs revealed that many of the winemaking activities, including bottling activities, were originally carried out in the main winery building. In addition, it was clear that the bottling plant and warehouse was originally constructed for use as a cannery sometime after 1930 and has since sustained numerous alterations, retaining a lower degree of integrity than the rest of the winery. The 2009 impacts assessment took this new information into consideration and resulted in the following summarized conclusions/ recommendations regarding the contributors: • Demolition of the bottling plant and warehouse and/or the dry wine bottling room: Removal of either or both of these contributors would not reduce Biane Winery's historical associations (criterion A) to the extent that the property would no longer be historically significant. Although each of these contributors represents a functioning part of a winery, removal of either or both would not diminish the significance of the winery as a property type (criterion Q. • Off -site relocation of the residences: The two contributing residences do not represent functional aspects of the winery as a property type. Therefore, their off -site relocation would not diminish the winery's significance under criterion C. However, the residences have significant historical ties to the winery (criterion A) and loss of those ties would be a significant impact. • Cumulative Impacts. The removal of four contributing buildings could potentially result in an impact to the setting of the winery. However, the core complex of contributors would remain intact and would retain integrity of location, design, feeling, association, materials, and workmanship. Therefore, the significance of the winery would not be significantly diminished by the loss of these contributors. • Recommendations: The 2009 report indicates that the following are not mitigation measures: o Affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences: The plaques would identify their original locations and historical associations with Biane Winery. This would preserve a historical tie between the residences and the winery, reducing the loss of their on -site historical association. (2/12/16) R:1BIw160 I Ulemo.docx E2—E3Pg 28 LSA %SSOC1 %TLS, J.N, o Complete Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS III) prior to demolition or relocation: This documentation consists of written data discussing the history and development of the property; a site plan; large -format photographs; and, if available, copies of measured drawings, historic photographs, and newspaper articles. Copies of the HABS III report should be submitted to the City and various other archives. The 2009 report also considered the potential impact of the proposed new construction on the significance of the winery. The report concluded that the proposed new construction would not destroy any historic materials that characterize the property and that it would be differentiated from, but compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the older construction, thereby protecting the historic integrity of the winery and its environment. It was specifically noted that the architecture would be subordinate in detail and that the building would be set back approximately 15 feet from the main winery building, preserving the existing view of the winery from 8d' Street. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS As previously stated, LSA was asked to review the previous reports for Biane Winery in order to detennine whether the demolition of two contributing residences would result in changes to the historic significance of the property. Based on the information and analysis provided in the 2008 and 2009 reports, the two residences derive their significance solely from their association with the winery. They are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood -framed houses dating to the early part of the 20th century. If they are relocated off site, they will be out of context and their significance as contributing resources will be lost. This is true even if plaques are installed in an effort to convey their former association with the winery. Without the residences, the winery would retain its National Register eligibility. It would still be clearly identifiable as a winery and would retain a number of contributing buildings and features. Therefore, demolition of the contributing residences would not be a significant impact to the historic property (winery). With this in mind, LSA recommends the following: • Complete HABS-like documentation: Prior to removal of any contributing buildings or features, the Biane Winery should be -documented in a manner similar to HABS Level III by a qualified professional. This documentation should consist of the following: o A site plan depicting all extant features on the winery property. The site plan may use a current aerial photograph as a base and must include a scale, north arrow, and legend identifying the various buildings and features (similar to Figure 2 of the 2009 report). o Large -format, archival quality, black -and -white photographs of exterior elevations, interior views, character -defining features, and context views. o If available, copies of historic site plans, elevation drawings, floor plans, measured drawings, historic photographs, and newspaper articles. o Written documentation discussing the history and development of the property. (The report prepared by LSA in 2008 will satisfy the requirements for the written data.) o The HABS-like documentation should be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Biane Family Properties, LLC, and the Paul A. Biane branch of the Rancho Cucamonga Public W 016) R:T1%V16011NIcmo.docx E2—E3Pg 29 LS \ %S soCI %I (.S. L]C. Library. Copies of the photographic negatives should be included in the documentation for the City and Biane Family Properties, LLC. The FIABS-like documentation will capture the winery at a specific moment in time before any of the existing contributing buildings and features are removed. The interior and exterior photographs of the buildings proposed to be removed will preserve a record of their appearances, functions, and unique features and the related maps and other data will place them in context. Having this documentation available at various repositories will ensure that it will remain part of the historic record and available to future scholars. (2/12116) RABINI60bNIema.dacx E2—E3Pg30 STAFF REPORT PLANNINCDEPARTME:1VT Date: January 22, 2014 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 - BIANE BUSINESS PARK - A request to modify the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres by demolishing the existing Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room and constructing an industrial warehouse building of 122,304 square foot within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues - APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2013- 00475 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2013-00475 - BIANE BUSINESS PARK - A request to remove 24 trees related to Development Review DRC2007-00951 for a 6.51 gross acres site within the General Industrial Development District, located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues - APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review DRC2007-00951 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00475 by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Residential — Low Medium (LM) and the Santa Fe Railway South - Industrial/Commercial Buildings - General Industrial (GI) East - Industrial/Commercial Buildings - General Industrial (GI) West - Industrial/Commercial Buildings - General Industrial (GI) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial (GI) North - Low Medium (LM) South - General Industrial (GI) East - General Industrial (GI) West - General Industrial (GI) C. Site Characteristics: The site is a winery complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures (two of which are on separate parcels outside of the project area), EXHIBIT G E2—E3Pg 31 PLANNING COMMISSION S_IAFF REPORT DRC2007-00951 AND DRC2013-00475 - BIANE BUSINESS PARK January 22, 2014 Page 2 associated equipment, and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres. The site, known as the Biane Winery, is located on the south side of Eighth Street between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The winery was formerly known as the Padre Winery (State Primary Number 36-016423). The winery was previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in 2001 by a consensus through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process (California Historical Resource Status Code 2S2). The fifteen (15) buildings and structures consist of the winery building, bottling plant/warehouse, grape crushing building and grape pits, distillery and shops, bonded warehouse, sherry room, dry wine bottling, winemaker's residence, office/caretaker residence, a restroom, cooperage shop, foreman's residence, chemical room, and a lunch shelter. The site is a rectangular configuration consisting of two separate parcels. Dimensions north to south run approximately 568 feet and 856 feet running east to west. Most of the northern portion of the site is occupied by winery buildings. Currently, the winery is used as an industrial/commercial complex. To the south, east, and west are existing industrial/commercial buildings. To the north is the Santa Fe Railway and residential development north of the tracks. A rail line runs north to south just west of the project site. There is also an extant railroad spur line that runs along the frontage which will not be substantially removed or paved over as part of this project. This spur line was historically used for shipping the completed products along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway alignment that runs east to west along the north side of Eighth Street. ANALYSIS: A. Background: The project was first introduced in 2007. The initial proposal was a complete demolition of all buildings on -site and to construct a 239,370 square foot industrial warehouse building. The Biane Winery is considered a "historical resource" for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and thus triggered the requirement for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because of the unavoidable impacts to cultural resources. About halfway through the EIR process, the applicant considered an alternative project description that would result in the demolition of two district contributors (Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room) and preservation/continued adaptive reuse of the significant structures identified as contributors. A cultural impacts assessment was performed by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) to review the revised project. Although LSA found potential impacts, these impacts were analyzed for significance and mitigated to a level that is less -than -significant. B. Proiect Description: The revised project encompasses 6.51 of the 10.41 acres. The project is a partial -build option that would result in demolition of several buildings within the 6.51 acres, including the Bottling Plant/Warehouse, the Dry Wine Bottling Room, cooperage shop, restroom, lunch shelter, and foreman's residence buildings to construct a 122,304 square - foot industrial warehouse building. The eastern portion of the site (3.9 acres) is not part of this project. The cooperage shop, foreman's residence, restroom, and lunch shelter are found to be non -contributors to the historic winery (Exhibit B). The demolition of the two contributors (Bottling Plant/Warehouse and the Dry Wine Bottling Room) will be mitigated to a level that is less -than -significant. The other two winery residences will be relocated to an off- E2—E3Pg32 PLANNING CONIiMISSIOiN STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00951 AND DRC2013-00475 - BIANE BUSINESS PARK January 22, 2014 Page 3 site location. Potential impacts and mitigations to cultural resources were analyzed in the. Initial Study Part ll. C. Site Improvements: As part of this approval, street improvements will be made to bring the site into conformance with the current requirements of the General Industrial Development District. The applicant will be required to install frontage improvements such as curb adjacent sidewalk and street trees and place the existing overhead utilities underground. The existing historic spur line that runs along the north perimeter of the property will be protected in place when installing public improvements within the right-of-way. Engineering special conditions of approval are noted in the Resolution of Approval. The eastern portion of the site is not part of this project and is not subject to improvements at this time. Additionally, there will be a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing lots so that the old and new portions of the site are on separate parcels. D. Parking: The entire development provides 98 parking spaces. The minimum required parking spaces is 79; 19 spaces above the minimum requirement. There are 21 (14 feet by 50 feet) and (12 feet by 53 feet) trailer stalls. y Parking Regwrements 1'^TofalSatlare.Feet ^t.5',.�..s; ' 3 r- �'Reawred- - d >,� Providede t.y,. u ,V Office (4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft.) 7,500 30 30 Warehouse / Storage (1st 20,000 sq.ft. @ 1 space/1,000 sq. R) 20,000 20 20 (Next 20,000 sq. ft. @ 1 space/2,000 sq. ft) 20,000 10 48 (Remaining sq. ft. 1 space/4,000 sq. ft. 74,804 19 0 Total Required Parking Spaces 79 Total Provided Parking Spaces 98 E. Tree Removal Permit: Included with the project is a request to remove 24 trees (DRC2013- 00475). The tree removals are necessary in order to construct the industrial building and related parking. There are also non -heritage trees on -site, such as citrus trees, smaller trees less than 20 inches in diameter and vines. Non -heritage trees are exempt from a Tree Removal Permit and the City does not have mitigations for removing vines. However, staff is recommending that the applicant offer the vines to any interested members of the public for the opportunity to replant them to an off -site location. The 24 heritage trees proposed for removal are required to be replanted on a one-to-one basis. A greater number of trees will be replanted in the parking lot area and around the perimeter of the project. F. Rail Spur Easement: Section 17.36.040 (D)(6) of the Development Code requires all properties which adjoin existing or proposed lead or spur lines to provide rail service access. The applicant has provided an area for the proposed rail spur easement. However, it does not meet the City's Development Code minimum standard of 32 feet. The applicant has provided a letter outlining their discussion with a Railroad Engineer Consultant and how the 20 feet more than meets railway design standards. This item was brought up at the April 30, 2013, Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting; the DRC was favorable to accepting the letter as adequate. G. Cultural Impacts Assessment & Landmark Designation: When a structure is designated as a local historic landmark, the City has authority for discretionary review of future exterior improvements. To ensure that the winery will not yield to piecemeal improvements in the E2—E3Pg 33 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00951 AND DRC2013-00475 - BIANE BUSINESS PARK January 22, 2014 Page 4 future, potentially affecting the eligibility of the winery for the National Register of Historic Places, staff is requesting that a landmark designation be required as part of the Condition of Approval for this project. H. Land Use Compatibility: The project site is located within the General Industrial Development District which permits warehouse and office use. The surrounding properties include typical industrial -related uses such as an upholstery business, food processing, warehousing/storage, and residential development just north of the railroad tracks. The proposed project is consistent with its land use designation. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Committee (Fletcher, Oaxaca, Granger) on April 30, 2013. The main topics of discussion were in regards to the mural detailing on the north elevation, the rail spur easement along the west side of the building, and providing more articulation along the east elevation (Exhibit C). The DRC directed the applicant to work with staff on making the necessary revisions and recommended approval to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. The applicant has worked with staff and has made all of the requested changes. J. Grading and Technical Review Committees: The project was reviewed by the Committees on April 30, 2013. The Committees recommended approval of the project without changes. K. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, green house gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, land use and planning, and population and housing, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. The City received one comment from the California Department of Transportation in regards to the Transportation section of the Initial Study on July 15, 2013. There was concern that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) referenced in the Initial Study was from 2008 and Caltrans could not review the TIA until a new TIA was submitted. However, the 2008 TIA was based off of the first proposal which proposed a much larger building (239,370 square feet). The current proposal is now 122,304 square feet and about half in size. Because the project has been reduced in size, there will be less trips generated due to the smaller -scaled project and therefore reduced impacts to traffic. Staff advised the applicant to contact Caltrans to review the revised Trip Generation memorandum. On December 20, 2013, staff received a letter from Caltrans stating that they have reviewed the revised Trip Generation memorandum and there are no other pending issues (Exhibit E). CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. E2—E3Pg 34 PLANNING COMMISSION — , AFF REPORT DRC2007-00951 AND DRC2013-00475 - BIANE BUSINESS PARK January 22, 2014 Page 5 Respectfully submitted, C` Candyce BurJtf&,'-� Planning Manager CB:MN/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Complete Set of Plans Exhibit B - Map showing Contributing/Non-Contributing Buildings Exhibit C - Design Review Action Comments, dated April 30, 2013 Exhibit D - Initial Study Parts I, II, and III Exhibit E - Letter from Caltrans dated December 20, 2013 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2007-00951 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00475 E2—E3Pg35 13 j .ii yj©g© TI- _ m a m 3XYl�3Nld 9L iJ _L F w EXHIBIT A PC 1fZ2/20Ifj E2—E3Pg 36 e /ri it )I Illllli J M 11H-III Biane Winery Rancho Cucamonga, California rinuuac au[• wiu.�w ul I)' :MY NY rxcmvurva HUNTER LANDSCAPE /�,/ „I,QUYSiYfl N(WI44fee/o m N I m a to W 00 e `a,- w*u•-la s al-•n-ae w p w w .e a s •n •n w �w wa. a •aa •a •a e• Iw w w a a a a s —a• L�--wl.w a�-n a I a-'n- w Iw w n• a a al m a a• Iw wIw I a aI a a I-m -� • x 18=R1-� �1 e wlw aI a •nI a'a Iw w w w ro a a a a s w I.w wl a al a al a a w Iw wIm •aI a a� a a (1) — (2) (�i C) I ; �.01 aoor,a• � I no- orcanuaoaEruxB etvMRS � Rml Rul 0) I:rrt.:f:6tYS.'2x �6'1l.c."'• ••, •,",••• C°°> As.'rs ,atavv°a;t wix'nauwa'�'" fi1FPIL Mfr9-RO]I10.N1 6 - - -- - - -=-w� O ® I BUILDING �— �22,304 S._F_. j -_ -= -- - — --i- (F) m ,l II 4 - — - — -- - — — 1 __—_OYEMlLFt00RPWl�A\®® a `.� I e HP, ; - 6 u•vo BIANEWINP + BIANE BUSINESS ;�ali1 �Mw.,..PARK..' 1 w:o 0 A2.1 a II I F - I 4 I w+ ?� ,t ` C j to ■ III' S lip 0 'qq Beearx=: W iiti� 1 ' /3iEiia9i C p + API i IN +qf gip: ; ➢� i ?,`� zi � - il 4t'ii 13 fiI'9 A �p d i 31 ;i3{i �eE� I eii 3sI 35 v c�. i'° 1 33 poi 311115 1 1.i: tji�ipi45pip'Ni1 9p745.�pp5 (t s ^ P 3iiii l FCCflg 35 593 �r° J3. ;ip f •� � poip �;Slfei 3 F 15xf.g3 5 E2—E3Pg 39 I —_ (D ---- = J �.1 HPt t �•:I I � i : t � __ t {-� _ 7'ITr-' r`t r 'r t'. TRASH ENCLOBUPE "ASH EMCLOBUNE —_— .QUTH EYT.WE4T-CKTA,TIONDOD MOPTHECRM WA4lFSEY11pH{A) I � Onnc 11 ICI�(( ff eUWE WINE( p rta— J� - � - •i T _ � �.� MIMIC vm � Jo- _ __ ______ _._ _ _. _ __ _ _ _ _ _. _ EAST {F� (B) 6IAN PL N[SS TRASH EMCBBURE TRASH ECLOSURE H9RTH —EnATO7 (C) 'A) I jtlp ♦. TIJk:,9 f;:;.Yfzf3 n __ LlJIM IV' I =t . _..—C9WQ,HjfeEABT_ESEY,ITIONMth LUWLPAT)9VjfREAP_BTRV 7397.-__SUNCN_P_ATJ9.9NEPNEap_97PVCaTV9E Cc uvwrts-nn.Tux mmn carts-nBVAroc alava - ••_. Cl) our.n �Bcuu ' (,,._.... ¢., ,,. -•• _ ..,,i,i..,...a N._.. (1 ,....,. .... ..mma -__ �T.'�.^.•....Li Li m )• — e �.. A3.2 HPA arrhllcclure Job No 72 12.00 COLORED ELEVATIONS & MATERIAL BOARD 06. 1 HPA archltecturc No 7) 12.00 COLORED ELEVATIONS - _ -1 OG. I m N I m w v to w w OFNEMLNOTF! ovmEarAceucwr ErFcm¢m ...... W,�, WAT CMLENGINM �E MLENOINEM CEkp4fICN NOTFA: Mx➢uID • d1TElY - GMp/NI SP[ClL GoxpllONe OF APpioVAA WOE]l YAP BF]ICHYAPo( Mi LEwL CEHCAIPf10N . ..... GHEEf TN YNIDuNUYEEA ...., e iM 91AEEf TREES XOTE: I I r �x l8 �fn OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VICINITY M I�HATCH LEGEND_ I :J DflC300]-00951 m N i m W A I I I I I I NA' ._ I I RJR TRACK i I 8TH ST' X si3i L4 w l � I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C4 LEGEND HATCH LEGEND IMsmff TpEFn NOTE O..........., .rev v • nn. e: •" .... I -- DRC3007-00951 R/R TRACK 8TH ST. 41. If -T. S-4 I: . . . . . . . . . . L 1 11 L14- I� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C-5 - tN,TCH LFL.M_ L DRC2007�0951 u HPA . 07) m �: C-3 9-0i9BHSB2S 3NllH3iVVV - - - - - - - - - - .7f 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - A + Al -------- -- wl -------- ------- -- ---- - ---- --- -- ---- - --- ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------- E2-E3Pg 46 —I 4 V a � 4 I 4 ' I R } I i I ' I r Ti � - "�,/ - III •_ r �`. . �� _ I ._--._P0133HS 33S BNIlHolyw ______— E2-E3Pg 47 m N I m w v A 00 y� Li l _ _ _._., ..•...o._ w...,... - — .. _.___ _ f.:C STH-STREET - _-- _ _ __.- •y- ''_ TH-�� C __' L-W.-w ..•..,_ I rs. , •_.,... 1 _ice !• i SECTION _ A SECTION ti L.itrry nv,�i Ll SECTION - C SECTION _ p p G Gnl G�mpcdiuc I —ur nr IL II ... , ri SECTION F r I DETAIL E SECTION ;• G r-F { I I c O I� II j 1 ' / 1ll I, I I =1111LLI, 11JJJ fITTiTI i \ ---i� e �m ' Npflt3t�lfRi�tM,3F3tr= I - I¢ 1 - • .. -. u 133i 3a01' 9't I � u I 1� i Ih ,. E2-E3Pg 49 O ----------------------------------------------------------------------- E2-E3Pg 50 Ll -&TI-L STREET 8TH­STREC7 n.ii- SmEET AN ...... . .. LASHING EXISTING LF BUILDING BUILDING TO BE RWOVED L CXNTING EXISTING IVNG BUILDING EXISTING L3 I PAVING m I PROPOSED PNJ TIE 4 BUILDING rl m c STING BUILDING 1EXISUNG _- -., I . i HOME EXISTING BUILDING III s EXISTING S� )OTCONMDTTAN s, t, UN 0 G EXISTING BUILDING 74- '-T-RM ONE EXISTING BUILDING L�- Tip • N ml HUIit W., -- - - - -- -- - -- - - - EXISTING BUILDING--------- _________ ---------------- ------ --------------- EARIINWORK MID ELECTFICIllr CUM! WATER TELEPIRDNE C-9 DRC2007�951 m w STREET N- 8mP MAINX.NMCE-REWIREMENTS. QVNKNMa; ------------ -- ---------- - --j I- , , -1 I. - INSPECTIM MT A PART) A ---------- --------------- J4 f 1 SER aEMINC L 1, L 7 ---------- WOMP SYSTEM PLAN NEW TYPICAL BMP - CROSS SECTION SYSTEM NO. I ..i TYPICAL BMP CROSS SECTION SYSIOU-500. 2 - - - ..I IXT CONSUT"M WOMP BMP EXHIBIT PLAN ... -1- E2-E3Pg 53 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Mayuko Nakajima April 30, 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 — BIANE BUSINESS PARK - A request to demolish a portion of the Biane Winery (40,300 square feet of the Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room) and to construct a 122,304 square foot industrial warehouse building on 6.51 acres at the existing Biane Winery site within the General Industrial District, located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues - APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Design Parameters: The site is a 10.41-acre winery complex, also known as the Biane Winery, located on the south side of Eighth Street between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues. The site is within the General Industrial (GI) Development District. The winery (formerly Padre Winery, State Primary Number 36-016423) is composed of 15 buildings/structures (two are on separate parcels outside the project area), associated equipment, and three, single-family residences. The winery was previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in 2001 by a consensus through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process (California Historical Resource Status Code 2S2). The applicant is proposing a Lot Line Adjustment, the demolition of the Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room buildings, and to construct a 122,304 square -foot industrial warehouse building on 6.51 acres. The eastern portion of the site is not a part of this project. The project is a partial -build option that would result in the demolition of the two buildings and relocation of two winery residences to an off -site location. Project Description and Architectural Design: The proposed building will be located along the western portion of the site as a stand alone building adjacent to the Biane Winery. Since its initial submittal in 2007, the project has been revised numerous times. After a cultural resource assessment was conducted, the applicant decided to revise the project to minimize the impacts as much as possible. The project will retain and preserve a majority of the contributing features that comprise the Biane Winery, Potential impacts to remove the contributing features will be mitigated to a level that is less -than -significant for the purposes of CEQA. Since its re -design, the applicant has been working with staff to incorporate as many elements to the project to enhance the historic winery theme through the Design Review process. The historic winery theme has been honored through the incorporation of materials to the industrial building that compliment the Biane Winery building. Trellis enhancements, recesses, and use of high -quality materials were incorporated to soften the appearance of blank wall planes. Most embellishments and detailing are prominent along the north elevation and the main entrance. The new building will be set back approximately 15 feet from the main Biane Winery building, which will help to preserve existing views of the property from 8th Street. Staff also worked with the Engineering Services Department to retain the existing historic spur line that runs along the north perimeter of the property. The spur line will be protected in place when undergrounding utilities within the right-of-way. With the proposed demolition of the Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room buildings, the west end of the Biane Winery building will be newly exposed. This wall has not been exposed in approximately 100 years. A condition will be placed on the project to preserve the west elevation of this building as historically accurate as possible. Any new materials or additions to this structure will require separate review. EXHIBIT G PC 1%1-2-1z0l1Y E2—E3Pg 54 DRC ACT ION AGENDA DRC2007-00951 — BIANE BUSINESS PARK April 30, 2013 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major/Secondary Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. None. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Mural detailing on the walls has been removed per the applicant's request. The applicant has indicated that the building design adequately addresses the level of design necessary for an industrial building. Staff recommends that the mural detailing be added back along the north elevation. 2. Provide articulation along the east elevation with paint color or the utilization of notches in the parapets. Technical Issue: Section 17.36.040 (D)(6) of the City's Development Code requires all properties that adjoin existing or proposed lead or spur lines to provide rail service access. The applicant has provided an area for the proposed rail spur easement. However, it does not meet the City's Development Code minimum standard of 32 feet. The applicant has provided a letter outlining their discussion with a Railroad Engineer Consultant and how the 20 feet more than meets the railway design standards. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All groundmounted equipment and utility boxes, including transformers, back -flow devices, etc., shall be screened by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced at a minimum of 18 inches on center. This equipment shall be painted forest green. 2. If a Double -Detector Check (DDC) and a Fire Department Connection (FDC) are required for this project, then the equipment shall be screened with a 4-foot high decorative block wall, subject to the review and approval by the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services. 3. All signs are subject to Chapter 17.74 (Sign Regulations for Private Property) of the Development Code. Staff Recommendation: With the Secondary issues addressed to the satisfaction of the Committee, staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval and forward the project to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee was in favor of adding the mural detailing along the north elevation; they directed the applicant to work with staff on the details. The Committee felt that the mural added character to the industrial building which helped enhance the adjacent historic winery. The use E2—E3Pg 55 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2007-00951 — BIANE BUSINESS PARK April 30, 2013 Page 3 of mosaic was not necessary because the adjacent winery building currently has painted murals that have held up well. The Committee was favorable to the 20-foot proposed rail spur easement. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to provide additional articulation along the east elevation with the use of paint or recesses to help alleviate blank wall planes. With these secondary issues addressed, the Committee recommended approval to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Members Present: Fletcher, Oaxaca, Granger Staff Planner: Mayuko Nakajima E2—E3Pg 56 i' ;:'• ;;..; , ENVIRONMENTAL r ' ' ' '' INFORMATION FORM _..:� (Part I - Initial Study) C&lo/Rancho Cucamonga (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line.) Planning Department (909)477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so thatthe City may review the projectpursuant to City Policies, Ordinances, and Guidelines; the 'California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. Upon review of the completed Initial Study Part I and the development application, additional information such as, but not limited to, traffic, noise, biological, drainage, and geological reports may be required. The project application will not be deemed complete unless the identified special studies/reports are submitted for review and accepted as complete and adequate. The project application will not be scheduled for Committees' review unless all required reports are submitted and deemed complete for staff to prepare the Initial Study Partll as required by CEQA. In addition to the filing fee, the applicant will be responsible to pay or reimburse the City, Its agents, officers, and/or consultants for all costs for the preparation, review, analysis, recommendations, mitigations, etc., of any special studies or reports. INCOMPLETE APPL ICA TIONS WILL NO TBE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. App,,lication Number for the protect to which this form pertains: Project Title: Name & Address of project owner(s): Paul 10013 East 8th Street Unit Z Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Name&Address of developer orpro,,ect sponsor.- Paul Biane,Biane Family Prperties LLC Contact Person & Address: EXHIBIT B c- I / 2 Z 1 20 1 `/ 10013 East 8th Street, Unit Z Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 dy Panl.docPage 1 of 10 Rev. 3A 7104 E2—E3Pg 57 Name'{&�tAddress of person preparing this (form (if different from above): Information indicated by an asterisk (;) is not required of non -construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. 'I) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the protect site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site from the north, south, east, and wes(, views into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): I.Ui �i. f._•. r1_ -� _ it , — , ., 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers Which additional sheet ifnecessary)': 0209-201-19 and 0209-201-20 -5) Gross Site Area (adsq. ft.). '6) Nel Site Area (totaj site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications). 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (aftech additional sheet if necessary). N/A 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the Cr' of Rancho Cucamonga and othergovernmental I:iPLA,,N;yING1FIN.4LIFORAtSV000VTER1lnitial Study Parll.docPage 2 of 10 Rev 3117104 E2-E3Pg 58 agencies in order to fully implement the protect Development Review Application 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, cite all sources of information.(i. e., geological and brhydrologia studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies). (See Attached Environmental Setting Description) 10) Describe the known culturaland/orhistoricataspects of the site. Cite all sources of inform ation(books, published reports and oral history). A. g-i70&fA Thesite asae►existinq'ainerythatisnolongerinon?ratinn L rf. n.,,r,- _completed by a city initiated Cultural Consultant _ L A- I:IPLANNIN'GIFINALIFORMSfCOUNTERUnitfal Study Partl.docPage 3 of 10 Rev. 3/17104 E2—E3Pg 59 1f) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now effect the site .(aircraft.roadway noise, etc.) andhowlhey will affect proposed uses: The site is currently impacted by noise from automobile truck and train traffic along 8th Street Properties to the east and south have warehouse facilitiies and dock noise attributed to trucks However, the noise does not impact the proposed site All warehouse facilities and dock noise will be within industrial levels and comply with the City's noise regulations 12) Describe the proposed project io detail This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use that will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary (See Attached Project Description) 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity offend use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): (See Attached Project Description) 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No the proposed protect will not change the Pattern scale or character surrounding the general area of the projec* the _ Surrounding use is primarily industrial, therefore keeping with the surroundinq scale and character. 1:1P:AVNING\PINAL%FORMSICOUNTERVNtial S!udy Pani.docPage 4 of 1C Rev, 3/17/04 E2—E3Pg 60 REVISED ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION FORM PART 1 - Initial Study 12) The proposed project consists of a facility with 122,300 square feet for manufacturing and warehousing. A dock area, 100 parking stalls, 24 trailer stalls, potential rail access as well as drives/fire lanes, concrete garden walls between the project and the adjacent existing facilities east of the project and landscaping that meet the city's current design requirements are included in the design. A new -shared drive off of 8th Street between the project and the existing facilities to the east is also being proposed. E2-E3Pg 61 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise lobe generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and cn-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? Temporary noise will be generated from the grading and construction process. Long term noise generated from warehouse facilities and dock noise will be within industrial levels and comply with the City's noise regulations `16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic watersupplies) into which the site drains: The site has an existing lateral water line coming off 8th street i8) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates).. For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal7Day) :2(D:ZO b. Commercial7lnd. (gal/day/ac) 772E Peak use (gaLlmin7ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposaL ❑ Septic Tank [K sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation, (See Attachment Afar usage estimates). For furtherclanfication,please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal7day) b. Commercialgndustrial (gal/day7ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Delached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Attached (irdica to whether units are rental or for sale units): IIPLANNINGIFINAL`.FGRPdS100014TERVnitial Stady Partl,docPage 5 of 10 Rev. 3/17104 E2—E3Pg 62 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents - Sale Price(s) $ to S Rent (permonth) $ to $ 22) Specifyn(jmbero,`badroomsbyurittypa: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school. children who will be residing within the project. Contact the, appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment 8: a. Elementary: b.. Junior High. c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of users) and majorfunction(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: Light Industrial- Warehouse facility 26) Total flcorarea of commercial, industrial, orinstitutional uses by type: i22 I"�o4- .sq.ft.of industrial warehouse /AA-Yoi7�Af 1f..i— /IAIi1 T..4-�AI 1--_I 27) Indicate hours of operation. TBD 28) Numberofemployees: Totat. TBD Maximum Shift: TBD Time of Maximum Shift., TBD PVPLANNINGIFINALIFORMSICOUNTERIInllial Study Partl.docPage 5 of 10 Rev. 3117iO4 E2—E3Pg 63 29) Provide breakdown ofanticipated job classificabnns, including wage and salary ranges, es well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification, (attach additional sheet if necessary): EN 30) Estimation of number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City.' TBD *31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type, and amount of air pollution emissions (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. �» � -W-I `fin wsn f� 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides, fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, it known. 'there are no known hazardous or toxic materials. I:\PLANNING%FINAL\=ORt,IS1COUNTER\Ini'ia; Study Partl.docPage 7 of 10 Rev 3117104 E2—E3Pg 64 34) Will the proposed project involvo the temporary orlong-term use, storage, ordischarge ofhazardous and/or toxic materials; including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the applicatron plans. 35) The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fee. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission/Planning Director hearing: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true rand correct tot he best ofmykno•wledge and belief. I further understand that additional information maybe required to be submitted beforean adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamgogq /}/ Date: 1' 460. � / ;(dl Signature: IiIPLANNINGIFINALIFORNISICOUNTERtlnitial Study Pad7.docPage 8 o;10 Rev. 3117/04 E2—E3Pg 65 ATTACHMENT"A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED WATER USE AND SEWER FLOWS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (Data Provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District February 2003) Water Usage Single -Family Multi -Family Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Office Professional Institutional/Government Industrial Park Large General Industrial Heavy Industrial (distribution) Sewer Flows Single -Family Multi -Family General Commercial Office Professional Industrial Park Large General Industrial Heavy Industrial (distribution) 705 gallons per EDU per day 256 gallons per EDU per day 1000 gal/day/unit (tenant) 4082 gal/day/unit (tenant) 973 gal/day/unit (tenant) 6412 gal/day/unit (tenant) 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant) 2020 gal/day/unit (tenant) 1863 gal/day/unit (tenant) 270 gallons per EDU per day 190 gallons per EDU per day 1900 gal/day/acre 1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government 3000 gal/day/acre 2020 gallday/acre 1863 gal/day/acre Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District Engineering & Water Resources Departments, Urban Water Management Plan 2000 I.�PLANNINGIFINALIFORMS)000NTER)Initial Study Partl.docPage 9 of 10 Rev. 3117/04 E2—E3Pg 66 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts - Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road. Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 6061 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chafrey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 1:1PLANNING\FINALIFORNIS''iCOUNTER11nitial Study Parl,docPage 10 of 10 Rev. 3/17/04 E2-E3Pg 67 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 - BIANE BUSINESS PARK - A request to modify the Slane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres by demolishing the existing Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room and constructing an industrial warehouse building of 122,304 square foot within the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues - APN: 0209-201-19 and 20, 2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00475 3. Description of Project: The site is a winery complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures (two of which are on separate parcels outside of the project area), associated equipment, and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres. The site, known as the Biane Winery, is located on the south side of Eighth Street between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The winery was formerly known as the Padre Winery (State Primary Number 36-016423). The winery was previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in 2001 by a consensus through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process (California Historical Resource Status Code 2S2). The 15 buildings and structures consist of the winery building, bottling plant and warehouse, grape crushing building and grape pits, distillery and shops, bonded warehouse, sherry room, dry wine bottling, winemaker's residence, office/caretaker residence, a restroom, cooperage shop, foreman's residence, chemical room, and a lunch shelter. The applicant proposes to demolish the Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room buildings and construct a 122,304 square -foot industrial warehouse building on 6.51 acres of the site. The eastern 3.9 acres of the site are not a part of this project. In addition to the demolition of the two buildings, two (2) of the winery residences will be moved to an off -site location. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jary Cockroft 14235 Farralon Court Fontana, CA 92336 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial (GI) District 6. Zoning: General Industrial (GI) District 7. Surrounding Land, Uses and Setting: The project will encompass 6.51 of the 10.41 acres. The site is a rectangular configuration consisting of two separate parcels. Dimensions north to south run approximately 568 feet and 856 feet running east to west. To the east, south, and west are existing industrial/commercial buildings. To the north, on the opposite side of Eighth Street, is a railway alignment consisting of two (2) tracks. Residential development exists on the opposite side of the rail tracks. A rail line runs north to south just west of the project site, and there is also an extant railroad siding that runs along the front of the property that will not be substantially removed or paved over as part of this project. This siding was historically used to for shipping the completed products along the BNSF railroad alignment, which runs east to west along the north side of Eighth Street, E2—E3Pg 68 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga PaaP 7 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mayuko Nakajima Assistant Planner (909) 477-2750, ext. 4307 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): GLOSSARY — The following abbreviations are used in this report CVWD — Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR — Environmental Impact Report FEIR — Final Environmental Impact Report FPEIR - Final Program Environmental Impact Report NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOx — Nitrogen Oxides ROG — Reactive Organic Gases PMro — Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD — South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP — Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan URBEMIS7G — Urban Emissions Model 7G ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact," 'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than -Significant -Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ).Aesthetics (x) Biological Resources (x) Greenhouse Gas Emissions () Land Use & Planning () Population & Housing DETERMINATION ( ) Agricultural Resources (x) Cultural Resources () Hazards & Waste Materials () Mineral Resources () Public Services () Utilities & Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) Air Quality (x) Geology & Soils (x) Hydrology & Water Quality (x) Noise () Recreation () Mandatory Findings of (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this cAse because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project propone��ll 1 ITIG�ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. n� r � MI n n Reviewed By: El rj-f A// Date: Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 69 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Paae 3 -soThan Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wtn Less Than Significant Mitigation S,gniBoant No Im aet ama.rat.d Impa[I Impaq EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project. - a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? () () () (✓) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but () () () (✓) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or () () () (✓) quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, () () (✓) ( ) which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) There are no significant vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within a view corridor according to General Plan Figure LU-6. b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) The site is located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues and is characterized by industrial/commercial development to the east, south, and west. To the north, on the opposite side of Eighth Street, is a railway alignment consisting of two (2) tracks. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project as the site is in an area designated for general industrial uses. Design review is required prior to approval. The applicant will install street improvements and landscaping along the public right-of-way. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) The project would increase the number of street lights and security lighting used in the immediate vicinity. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on Site Plans which require review for consistency with City standards that require shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or () () (✓) ( ) Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a () () () (✓) Williamson Act contract? Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 70 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Paqe 4 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: etanfany Signcant wm Less Than Significant hLtigatipn Signifcant No Imcad Incorporaletl Impact Im act c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re -zoning 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))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest () () () (✓) land to non -forest use? e) 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? Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues and is characterized by industrial/commercial development to the east, south, and west. There are approximately 209 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga according to the General Plan and the California Department of Conservation Farmland Map 2010. Concentrations of Important Farmland are sparsely located in the southern and eastern parts of the City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Farmland in the southern portion of the City is characterized by industrial, residential, and commercial land uses and Farmland in the eastern portion of the City is within the Etiwanda area and planned for development. Further, a large number of the designated farmland parcels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan, The General Plan FPEIR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is, consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. c) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that is zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related to the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. No mitigation is required. d) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related of the loss or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. e) The site is located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa ,and Archibald Avenues and is characterized by industrial/commercial development to the east, south, and west. To the north, on the opposite side of Eighth Street, is a railway alignment consisting of two (2) tracks. The nearest agricultural use is more than Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 71 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pplentially Witt, Than I Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0.76 miles north from Rancho Cucamonga conversion of forest anticipated. the project site. Furthermore, there are no lands within the City of that qualify as forest land. Therefore, there is no potential for land to a non -forest use. Therefore, no adverse impacts are 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the () () () (✓) applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute () (✓) () ( ) substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of O O O (✓) any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant () (✓) () ( ) concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial () () () (✓) number of people? Comments: a) As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.3), the proposed project would not interfere with the region's ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards for Criterion 1 Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations (local air quality impacts) or Criterion 2 Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP (consistency with the 2003 AQMP). Therefore the project is consistent with the 2003 AQMP and is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) Both the State of California and the federal government have established health -based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOA sulfur dioxide (S02), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PMto), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PMZ,S) microns in diameter and lead. Among these pollutants, ozone and particulate matter (PMIp and PM25) are considered regional pollutants while the others have more localized effects. In addition, the State of California has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (HzS), vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Rev 2-26-13 The City of Rancho Cucamonga area is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this include motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall and on highways. SCAQMD also E2—E3Pg 72 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 IS Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: epiemiaor Signifdanl wln Lass Than Signiflcanl MM1igation Signifcant No IfflpaCl npp�pplafed hppact Ifnpaal Rev 2-26-13 regulates stationary sources of pollution within in jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the Air Resources Board (ARB). The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the Basin the worst air pollution problem in the nation. The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude); this inversion (coupled with low wind speeds) limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six major pollutants, termed criteria pollutants: ozone (03), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PMIo), fine particulate matter Jess than 2.5 (PM25) microns in diameter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the Federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment" or "non -attainment" depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Nonattainment areas have additional restrictions as required by the EPA. The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring the Basin's compliance with the FCAA. The South Coast Air Basin is in Non -Attainment Status for Ozone, PM to and PMZ 5. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include daily emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and consistency with the current AQMP. As prescribed by SCAQMD, an air impact study was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates on May 30, 2013, that utilizes the California. Emissions Estimator Model Version 2011.1.1 (CalEEMod) methodology to, evaluate short-term construction emissions and short-term construction emissions for localized significant thresholds, long-term operational emissions, operation emissions for localized significant thresholds, and Green House Gas Emissions. Short Term (Construction) Impacts Source 2014 Unmitigated Emissions (pounds per day) FROG NO: CO S02 PMto PMzs Grading 11.34 90.77 52.19 0.10 10.84 7.51 Demolition 9.27 75.28 46.32 0.08 12.4 3.66 Building Construction 5.28 35.36 28.20 0.06 3.12 2.18 Paving 5.29 32.18 21.72 0.03 2.98 2.76 Architectural Coating 28.83 2.83 2.60 0.00 0.40 0.25 Maximum Daily Emissions 28.82 90.77 1 52.19 1 0.10 1 12.40 7.51 E2-E3Pg 73 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Pace 7 Less man FIssues and Supporting Information Sources: a lemiany won SigrifcantKN,: gnificant Mitigalmn led Rev 2-26-13 Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact No No I No No No No ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis - Appendix A (CaIEEMod Output) ,FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates, May 30, 2013 Source 2014 Mitigated Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx CO 802 PM10 PM2.5 Grading 11.34 90.77 52,19 0.10 6.97 5.49 Demolition 9.27 75.28 46.32 0.08 9.9 3.66 Building Construction 5.28 35.36 28.20 0.06 3.12 2.18 Paving 5.29 32.18 21.72 0.03 2.98 2.76 Architectural Coating 28.83 2.83 2.60 0.00 0.40 0.25 Maximum Daily Emissions 28.82 90.77 52.19 0.10 9.90 5.49 Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO =carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis - Appendix A (CaIEEMod Output) FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates, May 30, 2013 Equipment Exhausts and Related Construction Activities Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities envisioned on -site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on -site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut -and -fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project -by project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operation and weather conditions at the time of construction. Construction emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions and other factors. The proposed project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust. E2-E3Pg 74 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga paae R Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PoterIDauy :M,t7igat,on Less Than Sgnifcant Significant No Impact Impact Rev 2-26-13 Architectural Coatings Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are similar to ROCS and are part of the 03 precursors. There will be an industrial building proposed for the project. Based on the proposed project, it is estimated that the proposed buildings will result in approximately 28.83 Ibs of VOC per day during the coating phase. The emissions would occur after grading activities, near the end of the construction period. Therefore, this VOC emission is the principal air emission and is less than the SCAQMD VOC threshold of 75 Ibs/day. Emissions associated with architectural coatings could be reduced by using pre-coated/natural-colored building materials, using water -based or low-VOC coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. For example, a high -volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray method is a coating application system operated at air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), with 65 percent transfer efficiency. Manual applications such as paintbrush, and roller trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge have 100 percent transfer efficiency. Odors Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during construction would emit odors. However, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required, The Air Quality Analysis prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates, May 30, 2013, completed for the project states that land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste -disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. In compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 the proposed uses are not anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. Therefore, objectionable odors posing a health risk to potential on -site and existing off -site uses would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Naturally Occurring Asbestos The proposed project is located in San Bernardino County; and it is not among the counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. In addition, there has been no serpentine or ultramafic rock found in the project area. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestors (NOA) during project construction is small and less -than -significant. 2010 General Plan FPEIR Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures (short term) Short Term (Construction) Emissions - Continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. During the construction phases of development, on -site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere; increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an on -going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. Nevertheless; fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to E2—E3Pg75 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pptanrally nth Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inc., Impact Rev 2-26-13 be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on a project - specific basis and in conformance with the General Plan FPEIR. Therefore, the following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels: 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction -site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high -volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction -site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on -site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances andr use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. E2—E3Pg 76 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Fotanrally Sgnifcant wth Less man Sigm(iwnt Mitigation SigoifcanlF Impact Incorooratetl Im act Rev 2-26-13 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction -grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the future build out of the City. Based upon on the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS7G) estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan (FPEIR), Nitrogen 'Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PMJo) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore, they would all be cumulatively considerable if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less -than -significant. Long Term (Operational) Impacts Long Term Project Operational Emissions Long term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any project -related changes. The proposed project would result in a net increase in the number of industrial uses in the project area; therefore, the proposed project would result in net increases in both stationary and mobile source emissions. The stationary source emissions would come from additional natural gas consumption for on -site buildings and electricity for the lighting in the buildings and at the parking area. Based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates, May 30, 2013, the long term operation emissions associated with the proposed project, calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD) shows that the increase of all criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project would be less than the corresponding SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Therefore, project -related, long term air quality impacts would not be significant. Mitigation measures would not be required. E2—E3Pg 77 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With man Sigmficanl Mitigation Sgnificant No Impact Incorporaletl Impact Impact Rev 2-26-13 Table 11: Operational Emissions I Winter Emissions (pounds perday) Source voc NO, co SO, PMro Mobile 5.19 15,22 47.47 0.08 10.10 Energy 0.12, Ll 0.92 0.01 0.08 Area 3.20 0.00 0,00 0.00 0100 Total 8.51 16.31 49.39 0.09 10.18 Significance- Thresnold SS 55 550 150 150 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No Nwos Ar.23 SOprceS IOLI JOe aa:'ttinq, corstir or prodLlcts,.l'ea•N. and and5:3pirg VOC =%0:a tine or=,a-rc cempu'ds It-rit•rgen oc des CO, ceman neaocide so,-sulfir czico. PPd,; and PNI"-- oa-tiu.late alattzr Source: Appendix A. CAFEMod Ltpat PMzs 091 0.03 0.00 0.99 55 No Summer Emissions (pounds per day) Source VOC NO. c0 So. PM10 PM2.5 Mobile 5.27 14.40 51.49 0.09 10.10 0.90 Energy 0.12 1.09 0.92 0.01 0.08 0.08 Area 3.20 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Total 8.59 15.49 52.41 0.10 10.18 0.98 Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact No No No No No No Notes: Area sources include painting, consumer products, hearth, and landscaping VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis - Appendix A (CaIEEMod Output) FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates, May 30, 2013 2010 General Plan FPEIR Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures (long term) Long Term (Operational) Emissions - The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the future build out of the City. In the long-term, development consistent with the General Plan would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon on the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan FPEIR; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less -than -significant. The following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented: 1) Provide preferentialparking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. 2) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours. E2-E3Pg 78 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 Less Than Sigm(cant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potantially wtn Than SIgn,6cant Mitigation Sign,kanl No Im act IncotpotateC Impact Impact 3) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 4) Landscape with native and/or drought -resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 5) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 6) All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 7) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 8) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 9) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, the General Plan FPEIR identified the citywide increase in operational emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.3).. c) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 4.3), continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FPEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is located within 0.02 mile of a sensitive receptor, which is residential development just north of the project site on the opposite side of the rail tracks. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super -Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures listed under b) above and the following mitigation measure will reduce impact to less -than -significant levels. 10) All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 79 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 Less Than SignificantTL-aa Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigationnificant No Im aq mpact Impact and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. e) Construction Odors (Short-term) may include odors associated with equipment use including diesel exhaust or roofing, painting and paving: These odors are temporary and would dissipate rapidly. Operation Odors (Long-term) are typically associated with the type of use. Industrial uses could create objectionable odors and, therefore, are located away from residential uses and sensitive receptors. The site is located 50 meters from a residential development. According to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates on May 30, 2013, land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste -disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or O O O (✓) 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat () () () (✓) or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally () () () (✓) protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances () (✓) () ( ) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat () () () (✓) Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) The project site is located in an area developed with industrial/commercial uses. The site has been previously disrupted during construction of the winery, miscellaneous buildings, Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 80 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 14 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: aptem;anr Significant wm Les man &gnfican1 hWigat,w Significant No Im act Incorporate0 Impact Impact surrounding developments on adjacent properties, and infrastructure. According to the General Plan Figure RC-4, and Section 4.4 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat exists on -site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. C) No wetland habitat is present on -site. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. d) The City is primarily located in an urban area that does not contain large, contiguous natural open space areas. Wildlife potentially may move through the north to south trending tributaries in the northern portion of the City and within the Sphere -of -Influence. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) There are heritage trees on the project site; therefore, the proposed project is in conflict with the Tree Preservation ordinance. A Tree Removal Permit has been submitted for removal of on -site trees. Replacement trees shall be planted on a one-to-one basis. f) Neither the City nor the SO1 are within an adopted HCP. NCCP, or other approved State Habitat Conservation Plan area. The project site is not located within a local conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Figure RC-1. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () (✓) () ( ) significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () (✓) () ( ) significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological () (✓) () ( ) resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred () () () (✓) outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site is eligible as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation), and previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its significant associations with the history of viticulture in Rancho Cucamonga and under Criterion C as a good example of the Mission Revival architectural style as applied to a winery. A cultural impacts assessment was completed by LSA in July 2009. The project does not meet Standards 2, 9, and 10 of the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation. Two of the standards (2 and 9) relate to the removal or destruction of features that characterize a property, while one of the standards (10) relates to the alteration of an Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 81 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 15 sss Than Sigmfitant Lass Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polanhany vnlh Than Signifcanl hlaigat,.n S,gmfcant No Impact IncafpIXdla'� ImGad mpaG Rev 2-26-13 environment and essential form of the property. However, these potential impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less -than -significant for the purposes of CEQA, as explained below. Removal of Contributing Features Biane Winery is eligible for the National and California Registers under Criterion AM for its historical association with Viticulture in the Cucamonga Valley and under Criterion C/3 as one of few (if any) intact examples in Rancho Cucamonga of a Winery as a property type. Although the Dry Wine Bottling Room (Figure 2, Building 7) contributes to the historical associations of the property under Criterion A/1, its removal does not reduce Biane Winery's historical associations to the extent that the property would no longer be eligible for the National or California Registers under that criterion. Likewise, under Criterion C/3, the Dry Wine Bottling room represents a functioning part of a winery property, but its removal would not diminish the significance of Biane Winery under Criterion C as a property type. Although the Bottling Plant and Warehouse (Figure 2, Building 2) contributes to the historical associations of the property under Criterion AM and functional character of the property type under Criterion C/3, its removal does not reduce the historical associations of Biane Winery to the extent that the property would no longer be eligible for the National or California Registers under those criteria. This building was originally constructed for use as a cannery and became historically associated with the winery sometime after the 1930s. It has sustained numerous alterations and retains a lower degree of integrity relative to the rest of the winery. Furthermore, the demolition of both buildings will not reduce the significant historical associations of the Biane Winery or integrity as a significant property type under criteria AM and C/3. The winery functions that were historically carried out in these buildings (specifically the bottling of wine) were also performed in the main winery building; therefore, they do not uniquely represent any important functions of the winery. Compared to other winery properties in the Cucamonga Valley, the Biane Winery has retained several buildings representing most or all of the critical steps in the process of making wine and brandy, including grape crushing equipment, a distillery, a bonded warehouse, bottling plant, and even the means to transport the finished products (railroad siding). Even if both the Dry Wine Bottling Room and the Bottling Room and Warehouse are demolished, this important aspect of the significance of the winery will not change significantly. The removal of both bottling buildings will not result in a significant impact per CEQA. Relocation of Contributing Features The relocation of two contributing residences would not affect the eligibility of the winery under the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 because they do not represent a functional aspect of the winery as a property type. The buildings would be preserved on another site and would not be destroyed. The contributing residences have significant historical ties to the Biane Winery under Criterion AM They are both residences that historically housed winery staff, and their historic context is linked to their proximity and visual connection with the Biane Winery. If they are relocated off -site, the residences would lose the connection to their historical E2—E3Pg 82 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 16 Less Than Signifcant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Fplentiany wt, Than S �gmGcant MM1igation SigmBcanl Np Impact Inpprpomletl impact Impact Rev 2-26-13 context. However, without the residences, Biane Winery would remain eligible for the National and California Registers under Criterion A/1, and neither residence appears individually eligible for the National or California Registers or for local designation. Therefore, the relocation of the residences is a less -than -significant impact for the purposes of CEQA. Though not mitigation, LSA recommends the following to further reduce this impact. 1) Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at minimum an 8-inch x 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. This would preserve a historical tie between the residences and the winery, mitigating the loss of their on -site historical association. Combined Proiect Impacts to the Setting of the Winery The removal of four contributing resources from the Biane Winery complex would potentially impact the setting of the winery. However, the contributors that are proposed for removal are located on the periphery of the winery complex, and their removal would still leave intact the core of contributing resources. The remaining winery complex would retain the same location, design, feeling, association, materials, and workmanship. Furthermore, the remaining winery would retain sufficient integrity of setting to preserve its eligibility for the National and California Registers under both Criterion AM and C/3. This potential impact is less -than -significant for the purposes of CEQA. Although it is not mitigated, LSA recommends the following measure to further reduce this potential impact: 2) Complete Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS III). Prior to demolition or relocation of any, contributing feature, the Biane Winery should be documented to Level III of HABS by a qualified professional. This documentation consists of the following: • A sketch plan depicting all extant features on the winery property; • Large format (4-inch x 5-inch negatives at minimum) archival quality black -and -white photographs of exterior elevations, interior views, character -defining features, and context views; • If available, copies of elevation drawings, floor plans, measured drawings, historic photographs, and newspaper articles; and • Written data discussing the history and development of the property. (The report prepared by LSA in 2008 will satisfy the requirements for the written data.) 3) Copies of the HABS documentation should be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, the Paul A. Biane branch of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library, the Norman F. Feldheym Library, and submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation for approval before being submitted to the State archive or other appropriate repository. E2—E3Pg 83 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 17 Less Than Significant less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wth htltigatmn Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Imoact Impact b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project site; however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential archaeological resources. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Cultural Resources based on the future build out of the City. The following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented: 4) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying a in -kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. c) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the research performed at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Sphere -of -Influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity rating for paleontological resources. The older alluvium, which would have been deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000 to100,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, when the last 'Ice Age" and the appearance of modern man occurred, may contain significant vertebrate fossils. The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium per the Public Safety Element of the General Plan; therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 5) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 84 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Pace 18 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially S,gndmant wro Less man Significant thN9a!lon Significant No Impact incpryoratetl Impac! Im act monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth -disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth -disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. d) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site has already been disrupted by industrial/commercial development. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No evidence is in place to suggest the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on -site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State regulations is required for all development, no mitigation is required in the unlikely event human remains are discovered on -site. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as () () () V) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 85 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 19 Less Than S,g Incant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially w„ Than Significant utigaoon Sign,Lca I No Impact Incorooratetl Moact Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? () (✓) () ( ) C) 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table () () () (✓) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) 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? Comments: a) No known faults pass through the site and it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault, according to the General Plan Figure PS-2, and Section 4.7 of the General Plan FPEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within approximately 1.5 mile north of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 5 miles north These faults are both capable of producing Mv, 6.0-7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mv, 7.5 earthquakes is approximately 10 miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to M„, 8.2 earthquakes, is approximately 15 miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code and Standard Conditions will ensure that geologic impacts are less -than -significant. b) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within a designated Soil Erosion Control Area Exhibit 4.7-4 of the General Plan FPEIR. The proposed project will require the excavation, stockpiling, and/or movement of on -site soils. The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however, development of this project under the General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels: 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM1g emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re -planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. Rev 2-26-13 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off - site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. E2—E3Pg 86 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Pape 20 Less Than Th. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pale auy Signfcanl Less Tn., &gnifcanl ",gat,en Significant No Imoad Incorporated Im act Im act 4) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. c) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.7) indicates that there is a potential for the hillside areas at the northern end of the City and in the SOI for slope failure, landslides, and/or erosion. Areas subject to slope instability contain slopes of 30 percent or greater. Landslides may be induced by seismic activity, rain, or construction. The City Hillside Development Regulations prohibits the development within slopes of 30 percent or greater and limit the number of units that could be constructed within the Hillside Residential and Very Low Density Residential designations in the Hillside areas. The site is not within an Earthquake hazard zone or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-2. Soil types on -site consist of Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam Soil association according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types on -site consist of Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam Soil association according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. These soils are typically stable. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project. - Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or () (✓) () () indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? () () () (✓) Comments: a) Regulations and Significance - The Federal Government began studying the phenomenon of global warming as early as 1979 with the National Climate Protection Act (92 Stat. 601). In June of 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's Green House Gas ("GHG") emissions reduction target in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The EO created goals to reduce GHG emissions for the State of California to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additionally, on December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued findings regarding GHGs under rule 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: (1) that GHGs endanger human health; and (2) that this will be the first steps to regulating GHGs through the Federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA defines six key GHGs (carbon dioxide (CO21, methane [CH41, nitrous oxide [N201, hydrofluorocarbons [HFCsj, perfluorocarbons [PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6). The combined emissions of these well -mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to GHG pollution. Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 87 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 21 ass Than Significant Lass Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potanraiiy NZ Than Significant gabon Signifcanl No Impact Incorporatad Im act Impact Rev 2-26-13 The western states, including Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, already experience hotter, drier climates. California is a substantial contributor of GHGs and is expected to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit (OF) over the next century. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the lead agency for implementing AB 32, determine what the statewide GHG emission level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit (427 million metric tons of COZ equivalent) to be achieved by 2020 and prepare a Scoping Plan to outline the main strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline. Significant progress can be made toward the 2020 goal through existing technologies and improving the efficiency of energy use. Other solutions would include improving the State's infrastructure and transitioning to cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. The ARB estimates that 38 percent of the State's GHG emissions in 2004 was from transportation sources followed by electricity generation (both in -State and out -of -State) at 28 percent and industrial at 20 percent. Residential and commercial activities account for 9 percent, agricultural uses at 6 percent, high global warming potential gases at 3 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent. It is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change but that GHG emissions from the project would combine with emissions across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Therefore, consistent with the ARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan, the proposed project was evaluated for consistency with the Early Action Measures (Scoping Plan is a recommendation until adopted through normal rulemaking). The proposed project is assessed by determining its consistency with the 37 Recommended Actions identified by ARB. In compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 97 and CEQA, the project has been analyzed based on a qualitative based standard" (CEQA 15064.4). Additionally, the ARB was directed through SB 375 to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved within the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. SCAQMD and ARB maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Basin. The stations closest to the project site are the Upland station and the Fontana -Arrow Highway station. The Upland station monitors all criteria pollutant except PM10, PMZS, and SOZ which are monitored at the Fontana -Arrow Highway station. The ambient air quality in the project area for CO, NOZ, and SOZ are consistently below the relevant State and Federal standards (based on ARB and EPA from 2007, 2008, and 2009 readings). Ozone, PM,o, and PMZ 5 levels all exceed State and Federal standards regularly. Proiect Related Sources of GHG's - Based on the Guidelines for the Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G, a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community. However, neither the CEQA statutes, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines, nor the draft proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis. Significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. E2—E3Pg 88 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Pace 22 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sigmfcanl wih Less Than Significant Mitigation S`tgn,flcant No I=acl Incorporated Impact Impact Rev 2-26-13 Project -related GHG's would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. Based on the Air Quality Analysis prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates, May 30, 2013, the project would result in the following emissions of carbon dioxide [COA methane [CH41, nitrous oxide [N201, and would not result in the other GHG's. As seen in the tables below, the proposed project would result in a total of 360.69 MTCO2eq/yr from construction activities and 7,747.64 MTCO2eq/yr for operational sources (including mobile sources). Total project related emissions would result in 8,108.33 MTCO2eq/yr (construction, operational, and mobile combined). Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions - The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.5) indicates that GHG emissions result from construction activities associated with diesel -powered construction equipment and other combustion sources (i.e. Generators, workers vehicles, material delivery, etc.). The GHG emitted by construction equipment is primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). The highest levels of construction related GHG's occur during site preparation including demolition, grading, and excavation. Construction related GHG's are also emitted from off -site haul trucks and construction workers traveling to the job site. Exhaust emissions from construction activities would vary each day with the changes in construction activity on -site. The combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHG's such as COZ, Cho, and N20. CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Construction greenhouse gas emissions are: Table 12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Emissions (MTCO,j phaso U115110 Offmle Total Dem Ninon 34 13 7 81 41.7E Grad-n8 747.93 300 i6C.98 Ccn;;ructor, tin 18 4029 i-C 38 pavi'[g 2257 1.27 2384 loaning 2 56 l 00 3S6 Total 360.69 !6i[e = • me:' r .:at tY O'COr d 6Y do Em Xyalelnts 12-1;. iWiI%rarbir Clr,.tlda. P.et"::OA, :rr'C%Jr n l'cai os del So�rcr•Ca'EE19cd c�t9tlC I,4?ctvin;;, Although the emissions are less than the de facto SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT/year, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to further reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels: 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil -stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low -emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on E2—E3Pg 89 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 23 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact I Impact Im act Rev 2-26-13 the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel -powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak -hour traffic. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG's Emissions - The primary source of GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be from motor vehicles, combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, as well as off -site GHG emissions from generation of electricity consumed by the proposed land use development over a long term. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to review the project for "adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure," to determine potential impacts of GHG's. Therefore, the project has been analyzed based on methodologies and information available to the City at the time this document was prepared. Estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that is a worst case with the understanding that technology changes may reduce GHG emissions in the future. To date, there is no established quantified GHG emission threshold, but the de facto screening threshold is 3,000 MT/year. Operational greenhouse gas emissions are: Table 13: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source (MTC01e per year) Mobile 1,058, 79 Energy 614.85 Water 2,825.14 Waste 3,236.84 Subtotal — Operation 7,735.62 Subtotal — Construction 12.02 (averaged over 30 years) Total 7,747.64 SCAQMD Draft Threshold 10,000 Potentially significant impact? No Notes: MTCO.e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents Source oremissions: CaIEEMed (Appendix A) E2—E3Pg 90 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 24 Less Tban Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentially wen Tnan Sigmficant MiLgauon Significant No Impatl Inmrpc'd:etl ImpaCl Imoact Rev 2-26-13 The project involves the construction of a 122,304 square -foot industrial warehouse building and therefore would result in an increase in the net increases of both stationary and mobile source emissions. The majority of energy consumption typically occurs during project operation (more than 80 percent and less than 20 percent during construction activities). The proposed project will incorporate several design features that are consistent with the California Office of the Attorney General's recommended measures to reduce GHG emission including improvements related to sustainable development such as water efficient landscaping, carpool parking, and bike racks. The project is consistent with the California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team proposed early action measures to mitigate climate change included in the CARB Scoping Plan mandated under AB 32. The project has improvements related to sustainable development including water efficient landscaping, carpool parking, and bike racks. Additionally, the City is participating in the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) with SANBAG for the San Bernardino County area pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375. The long term operation emissions of the project will contribute to area pollutants but will not exceed any of the SCAQMD's thresholds. To further reduce the emissions, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) Construction and Building materials shall be produced and/or manufactured locally. Use "Green Building Materials" such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way including low -volatile -organic -compound (VOC) materials. 2) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of; • Increased insulation, • Limit air leakage through the structure, • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances, • Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping, • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems, • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements, • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's) for outdoor lighting. 3) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: E2—E3Pg 91 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 25 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wah Than Significant hhtigation Sign,lcanl No Impact Incur oraled Impact Impact • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non -vegetated surfaces. 4) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. b) The project proposes the construction of a 122,304 square -foot industrial warehouse building. No other applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emission apply to the project. The 2010 General Plan Update included adopted policies and Standard Conditions that respond to the Attorney General and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions guide infill and sustainable development reliant on pedestrian connections, re -use and rehabilitation of existing structures, link transportation opportunities, promote development that is sensitive to natural resources, and incentivizes denser mixed use projects that maximizes diverse opportunities. The proposed project includes bike racks, carpool parking, water efficient landscaping, and the reuse of two existing residences by relocating them off -site, and, therefore, is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of GHG's and determined that GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable, which would be a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction goals established by Assembly (AB) 32 and therefore would be less than a significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (✓) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or () () () (✓) acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg92 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 26 Less Tnan S.gni(<anl Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Nmn man Significant M6igaiipn Signifcanl No Impact In(orporate? Im act Im act d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of () () () (✓) hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, O O O (✓) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () (✓) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an () () () (✓) adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of O O O (✓) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive that any other in the State. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements and is in the process of updating,the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less -than -significant. The proposed industrial buildings are to be constructed -as speculative with no definitive users at this time. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine if the tenant's operations will include the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and volatile fuels and if there are any potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No adverse impacts are expected. b) The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the State. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements and is in the process of updating the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less -than -significant. The proposed industrial buildings are to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine if the tenant's operations will include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels and if there are any potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 93 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 27 Less Than S,gnl/,Cant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wm Than 'sp,faanl ht,t.gat,on S,gpri I No Imoacl Inwroorate0 Impact Impact c) There is a school located within 0.25 mile of the project site. The project site is located within 0,15 mile of Rancho Cucamonga Middle School at 10022 Feron Boulevard. The project will be required to comply with existing State and Federal standards on the use and transport of hazardous materials. The proposed buildings are to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No impacts are anticipated. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site inspections did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. e) The site is located within an airport Land Use Plan according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1 but is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 2.07 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is off -set north of the flight path. The project is located within the Airspace Protection Area according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1. Development within this protection area will comply with FAR Part 77 regarding height limitations in order to prevent obstruction to aircraft operations. No impact is anticipated. f) There are no private airstrips within the City. The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. New development will be located on a site that has access to existing roadways. The City's Emergency Operation Plan, which is updated every three years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from wind -driven fires in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone found in the northern part of the City; however, the proposed project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to General Plan Figure PS-1. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge () (✓) () ( ) requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere () () () (✓) substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 94 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 28 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pptenha0, Min Than Significant khtq.lpn Sgnificant No Impact Incur orated Impact Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the O O O (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () () (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? () () () (✓) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as () () () (✓) mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures O O O (✓) that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of () () () (✓) loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? O O O (✓) Comments: a) Water and sewer service is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). The project is designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The General Construction Permit treats any construction activity over 1 acre as an industrial activity, requiring a permit under the State's General NPDES permit. The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, administers these permits. Rev 2-26-13 Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity for new development or significant redevelopment. Prior to commencement of construction of a project, a discharger must submit a Notice of Intent (NO1) to obtain coverage under the General Permit. The General Permit requires all dischargers to comply with the following during construction activities, including site clearance and grading: Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off -site into receiving waters. E2—E3Pg 95 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 29 Less Than Signficant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PcIenrally VAth Than Significant MAigation sigmfi., No Impact IpCof00ta1Ctl ImpaCl Impact Eliminate or reduce non -storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. Perform inspections of all BMPs. Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and construction project discharges. A construction project for new development or significant redevelopment requires an NPDES permit. Construction project proponents are required to prepare an SWPPP. To comply with the NPDES, the project construction contractor will be required to prepare an SWPPP during construction activities, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post -construction operational management of storm water runoff. The applicant has submitted a WQMP, prepared by KCT Consultants, Inc. on February 19, 2013. which identifies BMPs to minimize the amount of pollutants, such as eroded soils, entering the drainage system after construction. Runoff from driveways, roads, and other impermeable surfaces must be controlled through an on -site drainage system. BMPs include both structural and non-structural control methods. Structural controls used to manage storm water pollutant levels include detention basins, oil/grit separators, and porous pavement. Non-structural controls focus on controlling pollutants at the source, generally through implementing erosion and sediment control plans, and various Business Plans that must be developed by any businesses that store and use hazardous materials. Practices such as periodic parking lot sweeping can substantially reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. The following mitigation measures are required to control additional storm water effluent: Construction Activities: Rev 2-26-13 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on -site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on -site and off -site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on -site or off -site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. E2—E3Pg 96 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 30 Less TiI Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Palannally igniGcaLess S wtnrnan &gnA¢ant iliganoSTN,Im ct 5) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. Post- Construction Operational: 6) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by KCT Consultants, Inc. on February 19, 2013 to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) According to the CVWD, approximately 35 percent of the City's water is currently provided from water supplies coming from the underlying Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins. The CVWD complies with its prescriptive water rights as managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster and will not deplete the local groundwater resource. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge because it is not within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Figure RC-3. Development of the site will require the grading and excavation, but would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 300 to 470 feet below the ground surface. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.9),-continued development citywide will increase water needs but will not be a significant impact. CVWD has plans to meet this increased need to the year 2030. No impacts are anticipated. c) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on the site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project design includes landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent erosion. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 97 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 31 Less Than Signifcarn Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polenlallr wm Than sigmfcant Mitigation Sigmfcant No Impact Inco oratatl Im ad Im aq and City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off -site. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off -site. No impacts are anticipated. f) Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The project is the construction of a 122,304 square foot industrial building, therefore, is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to minimize water pollution. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 2) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NO]) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. g) No housing units are proposed with this project — this is not a residential project. No adverse impacts are expected. h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. No adverse impacts are expected. Rev 2-26-13 The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to adequately convey floodwaters from a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete -lined channels, and underground storm drains as shown in General Plan Figure PS-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. No adverse impacts are expected. E2—E3Pg 98 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Paqe 32 Less hall Issues and Supporting Information Sources: F POMIM.ur Sigmfoant Wih Les Than Sigmfcant I Mitigation Sigmr"LNIm " Incoporated Impactl There are no oceans, lakes, or reservoirs near the project site; therefore, impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the level of non -significance within the City. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? () () () M b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or () () () (✓) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan () () () (✓) or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues and is characterized by industrial/commercial development to the east, south, and west. To the north, on the opposite side of Eighth Street, is a railway alignment consisting of two (2) tracks. This project will be of similar design and size to surrounding industrial development to the south, east, and west. The project will become a part of the larger community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project site land use designation is General Industrial. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection, SCAG's Compass Blueprint, or SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. The project is to construct a 122,304 square -foot industrial warehouse building on 6.51 acres. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designations as described in the Development Code and the General Plan. The building setbacks, lot coverage/floor area ratio, plotting of the building relative to the existing buildings on -site, vehicle and pedestrian access, and landscaping are consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to General Plan Figure RC-4 and Section 4.10 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 99 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 33 Less Then Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentially WithThan Significant Mitigation Sgmfcanl No Impact Incorporated Impact Impac! 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral () ()F (✓) resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) 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? Comments: a) The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1; therefore, there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site; therefore, there is no impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in () (✓) () ( ) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive () () () (✓) ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise () () () (✓) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in () (✓) () ( ) ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () (). (✓) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () (✓) would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The project site is not within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Figure PS-9 at build -out. The proposed project is a 122,304 square -foot industrial warehouse building, The proposed industrial building is to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. The City's Development Code requires that all industrial uses be conducted within an enclosed building; hence, no adverse operational impact to nearby uses is expected. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 100 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 34 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mdlgation Sigmficam No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Construction related activities such as the use of earthmoving and construction equipment, arrival/departure of contractor's vehicles and material delivery vehicles, and the construction of the building itself may create noise impacts. However, these impacts will be short term and less -than -significant when the activities are conducted in compliance with the mitigation measures listed below and the Development Code. The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. Because the project will not significantly increase traffic as analyzed in Section 16 Transportation/Traffic, it will likely not increase ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. Exterior: 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a construction -related noise mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction. 2) Business operations shall maintain a noise level at 60c1B or less during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. No loading and unloading activities including opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to residential areas. b) The proposed project is a 122,304 square -foot industrial warehouse building that will be similar in size to the surrounding buildings. The proposed industrial building is to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. The normal operations associated with this type of project normally do not induce ground borne vibrations. Construction -related activities such as the use of earthmoving and construction equipment, arrival/departure of contractors' vehicles and material delivery vehicles, and the construction of the building itself may create vibration impacts. However, these impacts will be short term and less -than -significant when the activities are conducted in compliance with the mitigation measures listed below and the Development Code. c) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. Because the project will not significantly increase traffic as analyzed in Section 16 Transportation/Traffic; it will likely not increase ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. d) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.12) indicates that during a construction phase, on -site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: Rev 2-26-13 1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level E2—E3Pg101 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 35 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially WithThan Significenl Nhtigation Slgnificanl No Im act Incorporated Impact Impact monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 3) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase. The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on -site construction equipment but do not address the potential impacts because of the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then be required: 4) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. e) The site is located within an Airport Land Use Plan but is 2.07 miles from a public airport. The Project is located approximately 2.07 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, () () (✓) ( ) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating () () (✓) ( ) the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. Once constructed, the proposed project will have a limited number of employees; hence, will not create a demand for additional housing as a majority of the employees will likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. No significant impacts are anticipated. Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 102 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 36 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pplanlially wtn Than Significant MAigaton Sigmfcant No Impac! Inver crated Impact Im act b) The project site is industrial with three (3) existing non -conforming residences on -site. There will be displacement of households or residences during construction. However, two residences (found to be historic contributors) are planned to be relocated to a different site. The third house (a non -contributor to historic significance) will be demolished. A displacement of one unit is not considered substantial; therefore, no significant impact is expected. c) The project site is industrial with three (3) non -conforming residences on -site. There will be displacement of households or residences during construction. However, the two residences are planned to be relocated to a different site. No significant impact is expected. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? () () () (✓) b) Police protection? () () () (✓) c) Schools? () () () (✓) d) Parks? () () () (✓) e) Other public facilities? () () () (✓) Comments: a) The site is located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues and is characterized by industrial/commercial development to the east, south, and west. To the north, on the opposite side of Eighth' Street, is a railway alignment consisting of two (2) tracks. It would . be served by Fire Station #2 located at 9612 San Bernardino Road located approximately 1.27 mile to the north of the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project to lessen the future demand and impacts to fire services. No impacts are anticipated. b) Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. c) The site is in a developed area currently served by the Cucamonga School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The project will be required to pay School Fees as prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of Building Permits. No impacts are anticipated. d) Rev 2-26-13 The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park, Old Town Park on 10033 Feron Boulevard, is located 0.03 mile to the north E2—E3Pg103 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 37 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: seemcani Mitigation Than Sign( and No Im ad Incorporated Impact Im act 1 of the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Cumulative development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase demand for library services. According to the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.14), there will be a projected increase in library space demand but with the implementation of standard conditions the increase in Library Services would be mitigated to less -than -significant impact. Additionally, the Paul A. Biane Library has an additional 14,000 square foot shell of vacant library space that is planned for future Library use. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Therefore no adverse impact is expected. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) 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? b) 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? Comments: a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park, Old Town Park on 10033 Feroh Boulevard, is located 0.03 miles to the north of the project site. This project is not proposing any new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. b) See a) response above. Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 104 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 38 Less Than Slgnifcarn Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P': I al.y wm Lean Signifcant tvfligalion Signifoem No Impac! Incot coaled I"p Impact 16. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy () () () (✓) establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets; highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management () () () (✓) program, including, but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including () () () (✓) either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature () () () (✓) (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? () () () (✓) D Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs () () () (✓) regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Comments: a) The proposed project includes the development of an industrial building. The traffic study prepared by RBF Consulting (August 26, 2008) estimates that the proposed project will generate 2,625 trips daily. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.16), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume, or congestion at intersections. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards. In addition, the City has established a Transportation Development fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of Building Permits. Fees are used to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. No impacts are anticipated. b) The traffic study prepared by RBF Consulting (August 26, 2008) estimates that the proposed project will generate 235 A.M. Peak Hour Trips and 247 P.M. Peak Hour Trips daily. In November 2004, San Bernardino County voters passed the Measure I extension which requires local jurisdictions to impose appropriate fees on development for their fair Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 105 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 39 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potent,ally With Than Significant Mitigation Sgnificant No Impact Incot prated Impact Impact share toward regional transportation improvement projects. On May 18, 2005, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a Comprehensive Transportation Fee Schedule updating these Development Impact Fees. As a result, the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency waived the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis reporting requirement. This project will be required, as a condition of approval, to pay the adopted transportation development fee prior to issuance of building permit. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. The project will not negatively impact the level of service standards on adjacent arterials. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. No impacts are anticipated. c) Located approximately 2.07 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is off -set north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. The project is located within the Airspace Protection Area according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1. Development within this protection area will comply with FAR Part 77 regarding height limitations in order to prevent obstruction to aircraft operations. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards because of a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles during construction and upon completion of the project and will, therefore, not create an inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated. f) The design of the project includes features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.). No impacts are anticipated. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the () () () (✓) applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or () () () (✓) wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm () () () (✓) water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the () () () (✓) project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg106 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Paqe 40 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pote nla lv Signifcaril wm Less man Slgnificanl Mitigation Signifoanl No Impact Incarporatetl Impact Im acl e) 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted () () () (✓) capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and () () () (✓) regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-1 and RP-4 treatment plants. The RP-1 capacity is sufficient to exceed the additional development within the western and southern areas of the City. The RP-4 treatment plant has a potential ultimate capacity of 28 mgd, which is considered more than adequate to capacity to treat all increases in wastewater generation for build -out of the General Plan. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. c) All runoff will be conveyed to the existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of Grading Permits, The impact is not considered significant. d) The project is served by the CVWD water system. There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. No impacts are anticipated. f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. No impacts are anticipated. g) This project complies with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 107 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 41 Less Tha[d[ Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pdtanfauy wnh jlmrlN,,q Significant MitiatioImpact Inror orat 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the () () () (✓) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually () () () (✓) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will () () () (✓) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resources as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Figure RQ-4. Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the project site. No impacts are anticipated. b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicant would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2010 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental effects of build -out in the City and Sphere -of -Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to Aesthetics. Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change and Mineral Resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed -use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. c) Development of the site under the proposed land use change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction -related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 108 Initial Study for Development Review DRC2007-00951 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 42 construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels; the loss of biological resources; loss of cultural resources and increased greenhouse gases. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less -than -significant levels. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier PEIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (T) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (T) Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report (FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates, May 30, 2013) (T) Traffic Impact Analysis (RBF Consulting, August 26, 2008) (T) Cultural Impacts Assessment (LSA Associates, Inc., July 2009) Rev 2-26-13 E2—E3Pg 109 Initial Study for Development Review ORC2007-00951 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 43 I certify that I am the applicant for the project described In this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environm�ent/l effects would occur Applicant's Signature 1' Print Name and Title: Rev 2-26-13 a Date: 7�'///o E2—E3Pg110 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: DRC2007-00951 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe above -listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the Planning Manager, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following. address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 E2—E3Pg 111 Mitigation Monitoring Program DRC2007-00951 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring afterwritten notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or Planning Manager prior to the issuance of building permits. E2—E3Pg 112 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: DRC2007-00951 Applicant: Jary Cockroft Initial Study Prepared by: Mayuko Nakaiima, Assistant Planner Date: July 24, 2013 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /initials Non-Complian( Section 3 — Air Quality Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4 in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, PD/g0 C Review of plans C 2 the developer shall submit Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low -emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4 performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high -volume, low-pressure spray. 47)All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance B0 g Review of plans A/C standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 2 5) All construction equipment shall comply with BO C Review of plans A/C SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, 2/4 contractors shall include the following provisions: Page 1 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequencv Verification Verification Date /Initials Non-Complianc • Reestablish ground cover on the gQ C Review of plans A/C construction site through seeding and 2/4 watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on -site haul gQ C Review of plans roads. A/C 2/4 • Phase grading to prevent the gQ C Review of plans A/C susceptibility of large areas to erosion 2/4 over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the gC C Review of plans A/C amounts of exposed excavated soil 2/4 during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in gQ C Review of plans A accordance with local ordinances and 4 use sound engineering ractices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule gQ C During construction A established by the City if silt is carried 4 over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high gQ C During construction A winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 4 25 mph) in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard gQ C During Construction A ratio on soils haul trucks or cover 4 payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other gC C soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD During construction A q and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCBj) daily to reduce Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by gQ C During construction A SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all q inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Page 2 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non-Complianc 8) The construction contractor shall utilize BQ C Review of plans A/C electric or clean alternative fuel -powered 4 equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that gQ C Review of plans A/C construction -grading plans include a 2/4 statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Long Term Emissions 1) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy gQ C Review of plans A/C vehicles and shuttle services. 214 2) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during BQ E Review of plans A off-peak hours. 7 3) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and BQ C Review of plans A/C reduce thermal load with automated time 2/4 clocks or occupant sensors. 4) Landscape with native and/or drought- gC C Review of plans A/C — resistant species to reduce water 2/4 consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 5) Provide lighter color roofing and road BQ C Review of plans A/C materials and tree planting programs . to 2/4 comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 6) All industrial and commercial facilities shall gQ C Review of plans A post signs requiring that trucks shall not be 4 left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 7) All industrial and commercial facilities shall pp C Review of plans A/C designate preferential parking for vanpools. 2/3 8) All industrial and commercial site tenants with pp C Review of plans p 50 or more employees shall be required to 2/3 post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 9) All industrial and commercial site tenants with pp C Review of plans p 50 or more employees shall be required to 2/3 configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent Page 3 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non-Com lian( reasonably feasible. 10) All new development in the City of Rancho gC C/D Review of plans C Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast 2/4 Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. Section "5 — CulturalResources 1) Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the PD D Review of A/C 3 relocated residences. This would consist of at Plans/Report During minimum an 8-inch x 10-inch durable plaque Construction for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. This would preserve a historical tie between the residences and the winery, mitigating the loss of their on -site historical association. 2) Complete Historic American Buildings Survey PD B Review of report 1 2/4 (NABS III). Prior to demolition or relocation of any contributing feature, the Biane Winery should be documented to Level III of HABS by a qualified professional. This documentation consists of the following: • A sketch plan depicting all extant PD B Review of report D 2/4 features on the winery property • Large format (4-inch x 5-inch negatives PD B Review of report at minimum) archival quality black -and - white photographs of exterior elevations, interior views, character -defining features, and context views • If available, copies of elevation PD B Review of report D 2/4 drawings, floor plans, measured drawings, historic photographs, and Page 4 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementnewspaper Actionews for MonitoringFrequent Verification Verification Date /Initials Non-Complianc na er articles • Written data discussing the history and PD B Review of report D 2/4 development of the property. (The report prepared by LSA in 2008 will satisfy the requirements for the written data 3) Copies of the HABS documentation should be PD B Review of report D 2/4 submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, the Paul A. Biane branch of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library, the Norman F. Feldheym Library, and submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation for approval before being submitted to the State archive or other appropriate repository. 4) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect PD/BO C Review of report PAD 3/4 undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with P!D B/C Review of NDSection 21083.2 Archeological Plans/Report During resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse Construction project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, Page 5 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non-Complianc including but not limited to, avoiding archeological sites, capping or covering site with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in -kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources PD C Review of report A/D 3/4 management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 5) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or PD B Review of report A/D q animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, ained tr PD B Review of report A/D " q and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth -disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area BO B/C Review of report A/D q being cleared or graded, divert earth - disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. Page 6 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for • Prepare, identify, and curate all for Monitoring PD Frequency D Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Complianc recovered fossils for documentation in Review of report D 3 the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected PD D Review of report D 3 specimens with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Section 6 — Geology and Soils 1) The site shall be treated with water or other BO C soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD During construction A 4 and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM,, emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re -planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept BO C During construction A q according to a schedule established by the City 1. reduce PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off -site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when BO C During construction A wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize q PM,o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by BO C During construction A q SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,,) emissions. Section 7 — Greenhouse Gas Emissions _ Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that BO C %� assist in reducing short-term air pollutant During construction 4 emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil -stabilizing Page 7 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for agent twice daily or replanting disturbed for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non-Complianc areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select BO C A construction equipment based on During construction 4 low -emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more BO C A than 5 minutes. During construction 4 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be BO C utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel -powered During construction A 4 engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to BO C A interfere with peak -hour traffic. During construction 4 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be BO C A supported and encouraged for construction During construction 4 crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG Emissions 1) Construction and Building materials shall be BO A C produced and/or manufactured locally. Use During Construction 2 "Green Building Materials" such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled, and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way including low -volatile -organic -compound (VOC) materials. 2) Design all buildings to exceed California BO A C Building Code Title 24 energy standard During Construction 2 including but not limited to any combination of: • Increased insulation • Limit air leakage through the structure • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances Page 8 or 13 m N I m w v N Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for • Landscape and developed site utilizing for Monitoring Frequenc Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Com Iianc shade, prevailing winds and landscaping • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's) for outdoor lighting. 3) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation PD/BO strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices ' in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non -vegetated surfaces. 4) Reuse and recycle construction and CE A demolition waste. Provide interior and Review of plans C 2 exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educated employees about reducing waste and about recycling. Page 9 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Section 9 —.Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activities Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Complianc 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on -site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on -site and off -site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on -site or off -site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 3) During construction, temporary berms such BO B/C/D Review of plans %VC 2/4 as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, BO B/C/D Review of plans %VC 2/4 street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the BO B/C/D Review of plans A/O 2/4 applicant shall submit to the City Building Page 10 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Official for approval of a Water Quality for Monitorin Fre uenc Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Com liar Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants after construction entering 'the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 6) The developer shall implement the BMPs BO B/C/D Review A/C 2/4 identified in the Water Quality Management of plans Plan prepared by KCT Consultants, Inc. / February 19, 2013, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for BO B/C/D A/C controlling and minimizing the use of Review of plans 2/4 fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Grading Activities 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for BO B/C/D Review of plans %�C 2/4 approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in Page 11 of 13 m N 1 m w v N A Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for June 2004. June for Monitoring Frequencv Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -lion _ 2) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Section 12 —Noise Exterior 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a BO C construction -related noise mitigation plan During construction A/C 4 shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction. 2) Business operations shall maintain a noise BO C A level at 60dB or less during the hours of 10 During construction 4 PM until 7 AM. No loading and unloading activities including opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to residential areas. Interior 1) Construction or grading shall not take place BO C A between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. During construction 4 on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not BO C exceed the standards specified in During construction A 4 Development Code Section 17.66.050, as age IL UI 13 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions fol Implementsu Action for Monitorin Frequent Verification Verification Date /Initials Non-Compl-ia meaasured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 3) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed PD C A as early as possible in the first phase. During construction A 4) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place PO/BO C During construction A 4/7 between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD - Community Development Directoror designee A- With Each New Development A - On -site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD - Planning Director or designee B - Prior To Construction a -Other Agency Permit /Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check - 3 - Withhold Certificate of occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports/Stutliesl Plans) 4 -Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 -Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 7 - Citation Page 13 of 13 51t TCOFP{ IFORYII 'cIV c NPORTATION AND HOIISM AGENCY FDMtiD G. BROWYJr.. Gpse�xr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 PLANNING (MS 725) 464 WEST 41h STREET, 6" FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-4557 FAX (909) 383-5936 TrY (909) 383-6300 December 20, 2013 Nlayuko Nakajima Assistant Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Biane Business Park, 08-SBD-10 P.M.7.519 Dear Mayuko Nakajima Fles}nurpo.err Be energy ericime The California Department of Transportation reviewed the revised Trip Generation memorandum for the Biane Business Park Project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and there are no other pending issues with this project. You can proceed with this project. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to offer our comments to this project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (909)-383-4557 or Harish Rastogi at (909) 383-6908 for assistance. Sincerely, DANIEL KOPULSKY Office Chief Community Planning/Local Development Review EXHIBIT E p� i�zZ�Zoiy "Caltrans improves mobility across California" E2—E3Pg 126 BF ■ ■ ■ A Company MEMORANDUM To: Daniel Kapulsky, Office Chief of Community Planning/Local Development Review, Caltrans District 8 From: Bob Matson, RBF Consulting Date: October 15, 2013 Subject: Biane Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum As you requested, this memorandum has been prepared to document the forecast trip generation of the currently proposed 122,304 square foot Biane Business Park project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in•comparison to the previously proposed larger 240,740 square foot Biane Business Park project, which was found not to have a significant traffic impact at the nearby State Highway intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed Biane Business Park is located at the former Biane Winery generally located south of 8h Street, west of Hermosa Avenue, and east of Archibald Avenue. Existing active tenant operations include storage, distribution, wholesaling banquet facility/food service, offices, machine shop, auto garage, computer repair, and residential use of three dwelling units. Currently Proposed Use The currently proposed Biane Business Park project consists of a 122,304 square foot light industrial warehouse building, which will displace 40,000 square foot of currently utilized warehouse space and three currently occupied single-family dwelling units on the project site to accommodate the new warehouse building. Previously Proposed Use The previously proposed Biane Business Park consisted of a 240,740 square foot light industrial warehouse that displaced the entire former Biane Winery land use. RBF Consulting prepared a traffic impact analysis for the proposed 240,740 square foot project site in August 2008. Based E2—E3Pg 127 Biane Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum October 15, 2013 on thresholds of significance established by Caltrans, the August 2008 traffic impact analysis resulted in a finding of no significant traffic impact at the study area State Highway intersections; the referenced traffic impact is contained in Attachment A of this memorandum. Project Trip Generation Currently Proposed Project Trip Generation To calculate trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project land use, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were utilized. Table 1 summarizes the applicable ITE trip generation rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast to be generated by the currently proposed project. Table 1 /TETrip Rates for Currently Proposed Project Site Use Land Use (ITE Code) Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trip Rate In Out Total In Out Total Light Industrial (110) Thousand square feet 0.81 0.11 0.92 0.12 0.85 0.97 6.97 ." v ".' ouvn rvmuu ,, mu mumul I. Zu 12. Consistent with the SANBAG analysis methodology used in the August 2008 traffic impact analysis, industrial warehousing land use trip generation are converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE) due to the high percentage of truck trips typically associated with these land uses, hence, the following PCE factors were applied: • 2-axle truck = 1.5 PCE; • 3-axle truck = 2 PCE; and • 4-axle or more truck = 3 PCE. Table 2 summarizes vehicle -type split for light industrial land uses contained in Congestion Management Program for San Bernardino County (SANBAG, 2003) and .utilized to convert forecast light industrial trip generation in vehicles to trip generation in PCE. Table 2 SANBAG Light Industrial Vehicle Splits Passenger Vehicle Trucks 2-axle 3-axle 4+axle 74.4% 8.4% 4.6% 12.6% source: wngesoon management Hrcgram ror San Bernardino County (SANBAG, 2003) Table 3 summarizes the trips forecast to be generated by the currently proposed 122,304 2 E2—E3Pg 128 Biane Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum October 15.2013 square foot light industrial warehouse project utilizing the trip generation data shown in Table 1 and Table 2 and the PCE factors described above. Table 3 Forecast Trip Generation of Currently ProDOSed Prnipot Land Use AM Peak Hour Tripsr15 Daily In Out Tota 122.304-tsf Light Industrial Trips - Passenger Vehicles 74 10 84 634 - Non-PCE-Adjusted 2-Axle Trucks 8 1 9 - Non-PCE-Adjusted 3-Axle Trucks 5 1 6 72 - Non-PCE-Adjusted 4-Axle Trucks 12 2 14 2 13 39 Total Non-PCE-Adjusted Trip Generation 99 14 113 15 104 15 119 107 852 122.304-1sf Light Industrial - Passenger Vehicles 74 10 84 11 77 88 634 - PCE-Adjusted 2-Axle Trucks 12 2 14 2 14 16 108 - PCE-Adjusted 3-Axle Trucks 10 2 12 2 10 12 78 - PCE-Adjusted 4-Axle Trucks 36 6 42 1 6 39 45 321 Total PCE-Adjusted Trip Generation 132 20 152 21 140 161 1,141 uquivGlulll. As shown in Table 3, the currently proposed 122,304 square foot project is forecast to generate approximately 1,141 daily PCE-adjusted trips, which include approximately 152 a.m. peak hour PCE-adjusted trips and approximately 161 p.m. peak hour PCE-adjusted trips. To determine the actual number of net new trips generated by the currently proposed project, existing trips associated with the displaced land uses should be subtracted from the forecast trip generation of the currently proposed project. Therefore, the forecast trip generation shown in Table 3 for the currently proposed 122,304 square foot project is conservative because it does not subtract trips generated by existing occupied land uses on the project site that will be displaced be the proposed project. Previously Proposed Project Trip Generation Consistent with the August 2008 traffic impact analysis, Table 4 summarizes the net forecast trip generation of the previously proposed 240,740 square foot project when accounting for trips associated with the displaced land uses. 17 E2—E3Pg 129 Biane Business ParlK Trip Generation Memorandum October 15, 2013 Table 4 Forecast PCE-Adjusted Net Trip Generation of Previously Proposed Project Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Project Site Land Uses 262 35 297 39 278 317 2,249 Existing Project Site Land Uses Displaced -4 -7 -11 -12 -6 -18 -180 Total Net Project Trip Generation 258 28 286 27 272 299 2,069 source: drane business i arx Project Irarnc Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, August 2008. As shown in Table 4, when accounting for the displaced land uses, the previously proposed 240,740 square foot project was forecast to generate approximately 2,069 net new daily PCE- adjusted trips, which include approximately 286 net new a.m. peak hour PCE-adjusted trips and approximately 296 net new p.m. peak hour PCE-adjusted trips. Trip Generation Comparison Table 5 shows a trip generation comparison between the currently proposed 122,304 square foot project and the previously proposed 240,740 square foot project. Table 5 Trip Generation Comparison Between Currently and Previously Proposed Project Site Uses AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily y Trips In In Out Total Currently Proposed Project Site Uses (PCE) 132 21 140 161 1,141 Previously Proposed Project Site Uses (PCE) -258 T2O1 -27 -272 -299 -2.069 Net Difference -126 -6 -132 -138 -928 NOW rct = passenger car equivalent. As shown in Table 5, the currently proposed 122,304 square foot project when compared to the previously proposed 240,740 square foot project, is forecast to result in a net difference of approximately 928 less daily PCE-adjusted trips, which include approximately 134 less a.m. peak hour PCE-adjusted trips and approximately 138 less p.m. peak hour PCE-adjusted trips. Conclusions The currently proposed 122,304 square foot light industrial warehouse project is forecast to generate around half of the number of trips forecast to be generated by the previously proposed larger 240,740 square foot light industrial warehouse project. Since the currently proposed 122,304 square foot project is forecast to generate substantially less trips than the previously proposed 240,740 square foot project, which had no significant traffic impacts at the study area State Highway intersections based on Caltrans' thresholds of 4 E2—E3Pg 130 Biane Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum October 15. 2013 significance, it can be concluded that the currently proposed less -trip generating 122,304 square foot project would also have no significant traffic impact at the State Highway intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Please contact me with any questions at 949.855.5736 — Bob, I:lpdatal00000100NOI.gl\TemPIPJMIProposalslRancho CucamongalBlane Business ParklTripGen_Memo_10.15.2013.docx 5 E2—E3Pg 131 RESOLUTION NO. 14-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951-A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE BIANE WINERY BY DEMOLISHING THE BOTTLING PLANT/WAREHOUSE AND DRY WINE BOTTLING ROOM TO CONSTRUCT A 122,304 SQUARE -FOOT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING, ON 6.51 ACRES AT THE EXISTING BIANE WINERY SITE WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EIGHTH STREET, BETWEEN HERMOSA AND ARCHIBALD AVENUES; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. A. Recitals. 1. Jary Cockroft, for Biane Family Properties, filed an application for Development Review DRC2007-00951, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on January 22, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a request to demolish the existing Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room of the Biane Winery and construct an industrial warehouse building of 122,304 square feet; and b. The subject property is zoned General Industrial; and C. The property to the north is zoned Low Medium and is developed with the Santa Fe Railway and residential development north of the tracks; and, the properties to the south, east, and west are zoned General Industrial and are developed with industrial/commercial buildings; and d. The subject site and street improvements are required as part of the approval process for Development Review DRC2007-00951. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts setforth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use 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; and EXHIBIT H E2—E3Pg 132 vi viYV vVivuvuJJivl .LJVLV I IVIV IVV. 14-UO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 2 b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or the improvements in the vicinity; and C. The application, which contemplates operation of the proposed use, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during the implementation of the project. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and the conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application, subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. E2—E3Pg 133 1`11 .v .%CJULU I IUN INU. 14-Ub DEVELO=i.1ENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 3 Planning Department: 1) Approval is for the demolition of the bottling plant/warehouse and drywine bottling room and for the construction of an industrial warehouse building on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues - APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. 2) Install frontage improvements per the Engineering Services Department conditions. The historic spur line along the north side of the project shall be protected in place when undergrounding utilities within the right-of-way. 3) Apply for a historic landmark application for the remaining contributing features of the Biane Winery prior to a Building Permit issuance. 4) Prior to grading, offer the vines to any interested members of the public for the opportunity to replant them to an off -site location. 5) Prior to demolition or relocation of any contributing features of the Biane Winery, document to Level III of HABS by a qualified professional, as recommended in the Impacts Assessment by LSA. Contributing features include: Bottling Plant and Warehouse, Dry Wine Bottling Room, Wine Maker's Residence, and Office/Caretaker's Residence, The Cooperage Shop, Foreman's Residence, and the Lunch Shelter are non -contributors (LSA - July 2009). 6) Upon demolition of the Bottling Plant and Warehouse, the west wall of the main winery building will be newly exposed. This west elevation shall be preserved as historically accurate as possible. Any new materials or additions to this structure will require separate review. 7) The costs to relocate the two contributing residences shall be borne by the owner. The owner shall notify the City in writing once the relocation plan has been finalized. 8) Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at a minimum an 8-inch by 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. 9) All future Double -Detector Check (DDC) and Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be screened per Section 17.48.050 (A)(4) of the Development Code. 10) The lighting shall be designed to provide security in parking areas, loading, shipping, pathways, and working areas. Note: The height of the light fixtures shall not exceed the height of the shortest on -site building or 25 feet, whichever is less, be architecturally compatible with buildings, and be designed with confined illumination within the project site. Provide a minimum of 1-foot candle of lighting for parking areas, building entries, and other places where safety may be a concern. E2-E3Pg 134 �.u.v vVlVlIVIIV VIV. \LJVLV I IVIV IV V. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 4 11) Signs shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building design and integrated in the building. Signs are conceptual and require separate review. 12) The project shall comply with the Industrial Performance Standards in Section 17.66.110 Class B. 13) The landscape architect will need to verify compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance 823) on the Final Landscape Plans. The evaporation rate required in the calculations can be found on the CIMIS web site: (htto://wwwcimis water cagov/cimis/infoEtoOverview iso). The nearest measurement station is the Los Angeles Basin — Pomona - #78). 14) Expansion of office use through a tenant improvement will not be permitted because of the parking spaces provided. 15) Print a copy of this Resolution of Approval on the plans when they are submitted for Plan Check. 16) The facility shall be maintained at all times, including making necessary repairs as needed and keeping the site free from trash and debris. In no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 17) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building and Safety Services Department. 18) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Conditions, Health Departments, Uniform Building Code, oranyother City Ordinances. Engineering Services Department: 1) Process a Lot Line Adjustment prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 2) If additional right-of-way is needed on Eighth Street to provide 7 feet behind the curb face, it shall be dedicated by a separate document prior to or concurrent with the lot line adjustment. If the sidewalk easements are necessary at driveways, they can be dedicated at the same time. 3) Eighth Street frontage of the parcel being developed shall be in accordance with City"Local Industrial Street" standards as follows, except the existing curb and gutter may remain in its current location: E2—E3Pg 135 r �••r. uvV vVIVIIYIIVJI VI DEVELOPMENT REVIEW January22, 2014 Page 5 .COULU I IVIN IVV. '14-Ub DRC2007-00951 a) Install a 6-foot curb adjacent sidewalk, and preserve the existing Crape Myrtle street trees. Install additional street trees as needed. Grade the parkway to slope at 2 percent toward the street. if necessary, to preserve the historic railroad tracks, install a curb or low retaining wall at the right-of-way line. The existing fencing shall be removed from the public right-of-way prior to City acceptance. b) Both of the driveways shall have commercial drive approaches (Standard Drawing 101 Type C) with sidewalks that cross at the 0" curb face. Provide sidewalk easements if necessary. The maximum curb return radius is 20 feet. c) Provide 5800 Lumen HPSV street lights. d) Install, replace, or protect in place the existing R26 "No Parking" signs and all traffic signing and striping as needed. 4) The Eighth Street plans shall show all new and existing street improvements, including street tree locations/species and the correct location and type of sidewalk. If possible, the existing City Drawing No. 849 may be revised. 5) A City project to repave Eighth Street is planned in 2013. During the first two years after a City repaving project, more intensive trench repair than our minimum, per Standard Drawing 120, and/orovedays may be required. 6) The driveway accent paving shall be located outside of the public right-of-way. 7) For pads below streets, the first 6 feet of the driveway should slope away from the right-of-way (back of sidewalk) elevation at no more than 6 percent. 8) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 kV electrical) on the project side of Eighth Street shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage, extending to the first pole off -site (east and west), prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Eighth Street shall be undergrounded at the same time. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. E2—E3Pg 136 rnvv vvIVlwTIQQIv, COULU I IUIV NU. 114-UO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 6 Building and Safety Services Department (Fire): 1) A Reciprocal Access Agreement is required for Fire Department access and/or water (fire) supply. The Reciprocal Access Agreement shall be recorded prior to Building Permit issuance. Mitigation Measures Air Quality (Short Term) 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and the projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high -volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on -site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. E2—E3Pg 137 r LHIVIVIP,U I. UIVI PJIIJJI V. CtJULU I IUN NO. 14-08 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 7 • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction -grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Air Quality (Long Term) 1) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. 2) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours. 3) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 4) Landscape with native and/or drought -resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 5) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 6) All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 7) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 8) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 9) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. 10) All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning E2—E3Pg138 •.. I Iw„i,V V I v ),CJULu I (VI`! 19V. DEVELOPIMEIiNT PEVIEW DRC2007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 8 Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. Cultural Resources 1) Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at minimum an 8-inch by 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. This would preserve a historical tie between the residences and the winery, mitigating the loss of their on - site historical association. 2) Complete Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS III). Prior to demolition or relocation of any contributing feature, the Biane Winery should be documented to Level III of HABS by a qualified professional. This documentation consists of the following: • A sketch plan depicting all extant features on the winery property; • Large format (4-inch by 5-inch negatives at minimum) archival quality black and white photographs of exterior elevations, interior views, character -defining features, and context views; • If available, copies of elevation drawings, Floor plans, measured drawings, historic photographs, and newspaper articles; and • Written data discussing the history and development of the property. (The report prepared by LSA in 2008 will satisfy the requirements for the written data.) 3) Copies of the HABS documentation should be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, the Paul A. Biane branch of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library, the Norman F. Feldheym Library, and submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation for approval before being submitted to the State archive or other appropriate repository. 4) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. E2—E3Pg 139 is ,. �.nw.�.v� ._ilvLV I lV"j PAU. DEVELOPI"IEIN T REVIEW DRC2007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 9 Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in -kind mitigation fee. Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 5) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant oranimal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developerwill retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them forstudy. The paleontologist shall submit report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full- time during the interval of earth -disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth -disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation In the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to collected specimens with County Museum. Geology and Soils City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer a copy of the report to San Bernardino 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re -planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off -site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. E2—E3Pg 140 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW January22, 2014 Page 10 VLV I IVIV 11IV. IY-VO DRC2007-00951 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Short Term) 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil -stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low -emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel -powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak -hour traffic. 5) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Long Term) 1) Construction and Building materials shall be produced and/or manufactured locally. Use "Green Building Materials" such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled, and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way including low -volatile -organic -compound (VOC) materials. 2) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including, but not limited to, any combination of; • Increased insulation, • Limit air leakage through the structure, • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances, • Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping, • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems, • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements, • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LSD's) for outdoor lighting. E2—E3Pg 141 -1.h11'iIVII'!V livlVIIYIIJJIVI. .C.i VLU I IVIV IVV. 14-Ub DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 11 3) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets, and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non - vegetated surfaces. 4) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activities: 1) Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on -site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on -site and off -site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a.minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b)An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on -site or off -site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices E2—E3Pg 142 , ��•.rn v:: •s V^ �VIVI P]IIJ.JI VI DEVELOPMENT REVIEW January 22, 2014 Page 12 . ,DULU I IVIN I';V. 14-U,�i DRC2007-00951 (BMPs) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. Post- Construction Operational: 6) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by KCT Consultants, Inc. on February 19, 2013, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. Grading 1) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 2) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NO]) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e„ a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Noise (Exterior) 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a construction -related noise mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction. 2) Business operations shall maintain a noise level at 60dB or less during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. No loading and unloading activities including opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours E2—E3Pg 143 I. 11.11 I":V 1. -I'll 100IU, ♦=JULU I IU14 IVU. 1-:-UO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR02007-00951 January 22, 2014 Page 13 of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to residential areas. Noise (Short Term) 1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire,a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 3) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in the first phase. 4) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00, p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. E2—E3Pg 144 DEVELOFMENT REVIEW January 22, 2014 Page 14 ,LV VL.V I IVIV IVV. 14-uo DRC2007-00951 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: "Fiances Howdys ell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce B r ett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January 2014, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MUNOZ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE E2—E3Pg 145 'r- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DRC2007-00951 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES S/S OF EIGHTH STREET BETWEEN HERMOSA AND ARCHIBALD AVENUES LOCATION: APN: 0209-201-19 AND 20 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Date The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No 14-08 or Approval Letter, Standard Conditions, 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. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Manager hearing. a) Mitigated Negative Declaration - $2,231.25 4. Crime Free Multi -Family Housing Program - The owner shall cause the manager and any resident manager to complete the training for and enroll the project in the San Bernardino County Crime Free Multi -Family Housing Program. E2—E3Pg 146 Completion Date B. Time Limits 1. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. C. Site Development 1. 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. 2. 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 Manager. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 4. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager and Police Department (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. 8.. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, _/ /_ and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall /_l_ 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 Manager. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 11. 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. D. Building Design dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 E2—E3Pg 147 Project Plo. DPC2007-00951 completion Date 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 Manager. 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. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll -up doors and service doors to match main building colors. --- E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet. 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. 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Manager, 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. F. Trip Reduction Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided at a rate equivalent to 5 percent of all required motorized vehicle parking, with a minimum of one rack with a capacity for two bicycles. Category 5 telephone cable or fiber optic cable shall be provided for office buildings and other non-residential development. G. Landscaping 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 Manager 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. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 E2—E3Pg 148 Project Nc. D?C2007-0095.1 Conpletion Date 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier _/_/_ in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods, 3. A minimum of 20 percent of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30 percent within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 4. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 5. 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. 6. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or _/ /. greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For multi -family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on -site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 9. 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 Manager review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 10. 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. 11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. H. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 d E2—E3Pg149 Completion Date and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. Environmental Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of —/—/— implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the Planning Manager in the amount of $ 581 prior to the issuance of Building Permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. 2. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e. beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the Planning Manager prior to issuance of Building Permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of of mailboxes. Multi -family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S). K. Building and Safety Industrial and Commercial Standard Conditions Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; G. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc,) clearly identified on the outside of all plans 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of energy conservation calculations, and —/—/— a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 E2—E3Pg150 YiujCOl hu, Vf(t_.GL'U/-LJdJI completion sate 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and ' Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Services Department, 6. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can contact the Building and Safety Services Department staff for information and submittal requirements. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall _/_/_ be marked with the project file number (i.e., DRC2001-00001). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Services Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. The applicant shall provide a copy of the School Fees receipt to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to permit issuance. 3. Prior to issuance of permit issuance for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, and Transportation Development Fee. 4. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for a new commercial or industrial development project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such __ fees may include but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. The applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to permits issuance. 5. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of Building Permits. 6. For projects using septic tank facilities, shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 8. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department public counter). 9. All commercial/public/multi-family development swimming pool plans shall be submitted to the County of San Bernardino's Environmental Health Services Department for review and approval prior to approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 E2—E3Pg151 r�io,�ec�wo. UrZL'LUU/-UUJSI Completion Date 10. The following is required for side yard use for increase in allowable area: a. Provide a reduced Site Plan (8 1/2-inches by 11 inches), which indicates the non - buildable easement. b. Recorded "Covenant and Agreement for the Maintenance of a Non -Buildable Easement," which is signed by the appropriate property owner(s). New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire -resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 4. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Services prior to issuance of Building Permits. 5. Provide draft stops in attic areas in accordance with CBC Section 1505. 6. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." 7. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC . 8. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC. 9. Walls and floors separating dwelling units in the same building shall be in accordance with the CBC. 10. Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with CBC. 11. Upon plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. L. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building 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. 2. 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. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or engineering geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of Building Permits. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 7 E2—E3Pg 152 Pr 551 Completion Date A separate Grading and 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. If human remains are discovered on -site before or during grading, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. 7. 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. 8. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from the Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 9. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on -site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. 11. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage acceptance letter(s) from adjacent downstream property owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. 12. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owners to construct walls on property lines or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed off -set from the property line. 13. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible, and provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 14. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot off -set from the public right-of-way or adjacent private property. 15. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 16. The maximum parking stall gradient is 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the current adopted California Building Code. 17, The final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100 feet beyond the project boundary. 18. 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 Building and Safety Official. 19. Provide documentation for CVWD sewer off -set program to the Building and Safety Official /J_ for review prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 E2—E3Pg 153 Completion Date 20. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 21. The precise Grading and Drainage Plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit." 22. 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 Services Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i. The bottom of the over -excavation; ii. Completion of rough grading - The grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Services Department front counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils 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. 23. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) best management practices (BMP) devices. 24. Roof storm water is not permitted to Flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. M. Water Quality Management Plan A Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official 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 2. The Water Quality Management Plan shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. O. Street Improvements 1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a _!_/ source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 9 E2—E3Pg154 r"C,C,ct No. Ui :...2UU r-00951 Completion Data codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side- walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Comm Trail Median Island Bike Trail Other 81h Street (e) I X I X I X II Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in -lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. _(e) curb adjacent. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: 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, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: / / 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 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. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 10 E2—E3Pg 155 Froje t No. DP02007-00051 Completion Date g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. — — 4. 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. 5. 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 Sheet — (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Min. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Street Lagerstroemia, Pink Crape Myrtle 2' 20' 15 Fill hybrid "Biloxi" Hybrid O.C. Gal In Uonstrucnon (votes 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. 6. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: "All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans." If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. P. Public Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and —/—/— Lighting Districts 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. Q. Utilities 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. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. —/—/— 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 dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 11 E2—E3Pg 156 :ompla.ion Doe 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 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. 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. —/—/— Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. R. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to Building Permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative�— fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50 percent of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, andr appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department when the first Building Permit application is submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S. Security Lighting All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle —/—/— power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the —/—/— buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. The lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. The lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal -resistant fixtures. —/—/— T. Security Hardware A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. —/—/— One -inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are —/—/— within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.—� 4. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal�— gates, or alarmed. U. Security Fencing 1. All businesses or residential communities with security fencing and gates will provide the —/ police with a keypad access and a unique code. The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Crime Prevention Unit along with plans. If this code is changed because of a change in personnel or for any other reason, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 12 E2—E3Pg 157 completion Date 24-hour dispatch center at (909) 941-1488 or by contacting the Crime Prevention Unit at (909) 477-2800 extension 2474 or extension 2475. V. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be —/—/— lifted from frame or track in any manner. 2. Storefront windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. —/—/- 3. Security glazing is recommended on storefront windows to resist window smashes and —/—� impede entry to burglars. 4. Security/burglar bars are not recommended, particularly in residences, due to the delay or —/—f— prevention of a speedy evacuation in case of fire. W. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for —/—/— nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. 3. All developments shall submit an 8 '/" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi- —/—� tenant developments to the Police Department as approved by the Building and Safety Services Department. X. Alarm Systems. 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and�— employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriffs dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The project must comply in design and constructed in accordance with the 2010 California Building and Fire Codes, the RCFPD Ordinance FD50 and the RCFPD Standards. The RCFPD ordinance, procedures & standards which are referenced in this document can be access on the web at www.citvofrc.us. Y. Industrial Fire Standard Conditions FSC -1 Public and Private Water Supply Design Guidelines for Fire Hydrants: Reference the RCFPD Standard 5-10. —/ 1— dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 13 E2—E3Pg 158 J .(:__LI J:iui CumpN-Jon Date FSC -2 Fire Flow 1. The required fire flow for this project is calculated gallons per minute at a minimum residual —�—�— pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. The required minimum fire flow for this project may be reduced by 50 percent when automatic fire sprinklers are installed. 2. Public fire hydrants located within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow. Fire protection water supply plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing —�—�— water supply to or onto the site. Building Permits will not be issued until the fire protection water supply plans are approved. 4. On all Site Plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600 feet of —�—�— the proposed project site. FSC-3 Pre -requisite for submittal of Overhead Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Prior to submitting plans for an overhead automatic fire sprinkler system, the applicant shall —�—� submit plans, specifications and calculations for the fire sprinkler system underground supply piping. Approval of the underground supply piping system must be obtained prior to submitting the overhead fire sprinkler system plans. FSC-4 Requirements for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in buildings as required by the current editions of the —�—�— California Fire Code, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance and/or any other applicable standards that require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed. FSC-5 Fire Alarm System & Sprinkler Monitoring The current edition of California Building/Fire Codes, the RCFPD Ordinance and Fire Alarm Standard 9-3 require most fire sprinkler systems to be monitored by a Central Station sprinkler monitoring system. A manual and or automatic fire alarm system may also be required based on the use and occupancy of the building. Plan check approval and a Building Permit are required prior to the installation of a fire alarm or a sprinkler monitoring system. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standards. Refer to the specified documents for the system requirements. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access: Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets and highways, as well as private roads, drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire Department Access Roadways Standard 5-1. Location of Access: All portions of the structures 1st story exterior wall shall be located —/—/— within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measured on an approved route around the exterior of the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates and fences are deemed obstructions. Specifications for private Fire District access roadways per the RCFPD Standards are:�— a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26 feet. b. The maximum inside turn radius shall be 24 feet. C. The minimum outside turn radius shall be 50 feet. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 14 E2—E3Pg159 Compiazior, Date d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45 feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14 feet, 6 inches. f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20 feet on each side. g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9 degrees or 20 percent. h. The maximum grade of the driving surface shall not exceed 12 percent. i. Support a minimum load of 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). j. Trees and shrubs planted adjacent to the fire lane shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up. Vegetation shall not be allowed to obstruct Fire Department apparatus. 3. Access Doorways: "Approved doorways, accessible without the use of a ladder, shall be provided as follows: a. In buildings without high -piled storage, access shall be provided in accordance with the current edition of California Building/Fire Codes and/or any other applicable standards. b. In buildings with high -piled storage access doors shall be provided in each 100 lineal feet or major fraction thereof, of the exterior wall that faces the required access roadways. When railways are installed provisions shall be made to maintain Fire District access to all required openings. 4. Access Walkways: Hardscaped access walkways shall be provided from the fire apparatus —/—/— access road to all required building exterior openings. 5. Building Access: Knox boxes for site and building access are required in accordance with—/— RCFPD Standard 5-9. 6. Commercial/Industrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be in accordance with Fire District Standards. The following design requirements apply: a. Prior to the fabrication and installation of the gates, plans are required to be submitted to Fire Construction Services (FCS) for approval. Upon the completion of the installation and before placing the gates in service, inspection and final acceptance must be requested from FCS. b. Gates must slide open horizontally or swing inward. C. Gates may be motorized or manual. d. When fully open, the minimum clearance dimension of drive access shall be 20 feet. e. Manual gates must be equipped with a RCFPD lock. The lock must be purchased at the Fire Administration Office. f. Motorized gates must open at the rate of one -foot per second. g. The motorized gate actuation mechanism must be equipped with a manual override device and a fail-safe or battery backup feature to open the gate or release the locking Mechanism in case of power failure or mechanical malfunction. h. Motorized gates shall be equipped with a Knox override key switch. The switch must be installed outside the gate in a visible and unobstructed location. i. For motorized gates, a traffic loop device must be installed to allow exiting from the complex. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 15 E2—E3Pg 160 CJ Compietlon Date If traffic pre-emption devices (TPD) are to be installed, the device, location and operation must be approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. Bi-directional or multiple sensors may be required due to complexity of the various entry configurations. Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes. A Site Plan —/—/— illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum Fire District standards shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department for approval. 8. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures must be clearly —/—/ noted on the Site Plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application, if applicable, must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department for plan review. Roof Access: must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard. There shall —/—/— be a means of fire department access from the exterior walls of the buildings on to the roofs of all commercial, industrial and multi -family residential structures more than 10,000 square feet or with roof more than 15 feet in height and less than 75 feet above the level of the fire access road. a. This access must be reachable by the Fire Department aerial ladder. b. A minimum of one ladder point with a fixed ladder shall be provided in buildings with construction features, or high parapets that inhibit roof access. C. The number of ladder points may be required to be increased, depending on the building size and configuration. d. Regardless of the parapet height or construction features the approved ladder point shall be identified in accordance to the roof access standard. e. Where the entire roof access is restricted by high parapet walls or other obstructions, a permanently mounted access ladder is required. f. Multiple access ladders may be required for larger buildings. g. Ladder construction must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard Appendix. h. A Site Plan showing the locations of the roof ladder shall be submitted during plan check. Ladder points shall face a fire access roadway(s). FSC-10 Occupancy and Hazard Control Permits Listed are those Fire Code permits commonly associated with the business operations and/or building construction. Plan check submittal is required with the permit application for approval of the permit; field inspection is required prior to permit issuance. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions that may be hazardous to life or property. • Aerosol Products • Magnesium Working • Application of Flammable Finishes • Motor Vehicle Fuel -Dispensing Operation • Automobile Wrecking Yards • Open Burning dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 16 E2—E3Pg 161 Conplstion Date • Battery Systems • Organic Coating • Candles and open flames in public assemblies • Ovens • Cellulose Nitrate • Powder Coating • Compressed Gases • Public Assembly • Cryogenics • Pyrotechnical Special Effects • Dry Cleaning Plants • Radioactive Materials • Dust -Producing Processes and Operations • Refrigeration Systems • Explosive or Blasting Agents • Repair Garages • Flammable and Combustible Liquids • Rubbish Handling Operations • Fruit Ripening Plants • Spraying or Dipping Operations • Hazardous Materials • Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures • High -Pile Combustible Storage (HPS) • Tire Storage • Liquefied Petroleum Gases • Welding and Cutting Operations • LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings • Wood Products/Lumber Yards FSC-11 Hazardous Materials — Submittal to the County of San Bernardino —/—/— The San Bernardino County Fire Department shall review your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards. Contact the San Bernardino County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-4631 for forms and assistance. The County Fire Department is the Cal/EPA Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. If the facility is a NEW business, a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Services Services Department will not be finalized until the San Bernardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan. California Government Code, Section 65850.2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting speck hazardous materials disclosure requirements. A Risk Management Program (RMP) may also be required if regulation substances are to be used or stored at the new facility. 2. Any business that operates on rented or leased property which is required to submit a plan —/—/— is also required to submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates and has dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 17 E2—E3Pg 162 �cmp;;;ier Ga.= complied with the provisions. The tenant must provide a copy of the Plan to the property owner within five (5) working days, if requested by the owner. FSC-12 Hazardous Materials - Submittal to Fire Construction Services�— Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction of buildings and/or the installation of equipment designed to store, use or dispense hazardous materials in accordance with the current editions of the California Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, RCFPD Ordinances and other implemented and/or adopted standards. FSC-13 Alternate Method Application - Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal —/—/— will review all requests for alternate method, when submitted. The request must be submitted on the Fire District "Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of the review fee. FCS-14 Map Recordation —/—/— Reciprocal Agreements for Fire Department Emergency Access and Water Supply are required on this project. The project appears to be located on a property that is being subdivided. The reciprocal agreement is required to be recorded between property owners and the Fire District. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the Site Plan. The Fire Construction Services shall approve the agreement, prior to recordation. The agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Bernardino, Recorder's Office, Reciprocal Access Agreement — Please provide a permanent access agreement between�— the owners granting irrevocable and a non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire District to gain access to the subject property. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other structure shall be placed within the dedicated access, without Fire Department approval. The agreement shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the Fire District. 3. Reciprocal Water Covenant — Please —/—/— P provide a permanent maintenance and service covenant between the owners granting an irrevocable and non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire District for the purpose of accessing and maintaining the private water mains, valves and fire hydrants (fire protection systems facilities in general). The covenant shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the Fire District. FCS-15 Annexation of the Parcel Map: Annexation of the parcel map into the Community Facilities District #85-1 or #88-1 is required prior to the issuance of Grading or Building Permits. Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS — Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any Building Permits: Private Water Supply (Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit construction plans, —/—I specifications, flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District Standards. Approval of the on -site (private) fire underground and water plans is required prior to any Building Permit issuance for any structure on the site. Private on -site combination domestic and fire supply system must be designed in accordance with RCFPD Standards. The Building and Safety Services Department and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 18 E2—E3Pg 163 comps -,ion D_;_ All private on -site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. Fire construction Services will inspect the installation, witness hydrant flushing and grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 2. Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and CVWD. On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan Submittal Procedure Standard. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CVWD personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CVWD. Fire Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14 feet, 6 inches above the finished surface of the road. 4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CVWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CVWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. Easements and Reciprocal Agreements: All easements and agreements must be recorded with the County of San Bernardino. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER The building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services' "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures." PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION - Please complete the following: Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating —/—/— the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property, the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location. 2. Private Fire Hydrants: For the purpose of final acceptance, a licensed sprinkler contractor, in�— the presence of Fire Construction Services, shall conduct a test of the most hydraulically remote on -site fire hydrants. The underground fire line contractor, developer and/or owner are responsible for hiring the company to perform the test. A final test report shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services verifying the fire flow available. The fire flow available must meet or exceed the required fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code. 3. Fire Sprinkler System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler �— system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 4. Fire Sprinkler Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire�— sprinkler monitoring system must be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. The fire sprinkler monitoring system shall be installed, tested and operational immediately following the completion of the fire sprinkler system (subject to the release of power). dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 19 E2—E3Pg164 Cemplz[ion Da 5. Fire Suppression Systems and/or other special hazard —/—/— p protection systems shall be inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services before occupancy is granted and/or equipment is placed in service. 6. Fire Alarm System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire alarm—/ system shall be installed, inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. Access Control Gates: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, vehicular gates�— must be inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards by Fire Construction Services. Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire —/—/ access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services. The CC&R's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documents shall be recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the required annual inspections and the maintenance of all required fire access roadways. 9. Address: Must be in accordance with the RCFPD Standard 5-7, 5-8 and/or 5-5. Prior to the —/—/— issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commercial/industrial and multi -family buildings shall post the address in accordance to the appropriate RCFPD addressing Standard. 10. Hazardous Materials: The applicant must obtain inspection and acceptance by Fire —/—/— Construction Services. 11. Confidential Business Occupancy Information: The applicant shall complete the Rancho —/—/— Cucamonga Fire District "Confidential Business Occupancy Information" form. This form provides contact information for Fire District use in the event of an emergency at the subject building or property. This form must be presented to the Fire Construction Services Inspector. 12. Mapping Site Plan: Must be in accordance with the RCFPD Standard 5-11. Prior to the�— issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a 8 Yz" x 11" or 11" x 17" Site Plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard shall be revised by the applicant to reflect the actual location of all devices and building features as required in the standard. The Site Plan must be reviewed and accepted by the Fire Inspector. dre2007-00951 STND COND 1-22 20 E2—E3Pg 165 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review DRC2007-00951; Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00476 Public Review Period Closes: July 24, 2013 Project Name: Biane Business Park Project Applicant: Jary Cockroft Project Location (also see attached map): Located within the General Industrial District on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues -APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. Project Description: A request to modify the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres by demolishing the existing Bottling Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room and constructing an industrial warehouse building of 122,304 square foot within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the south side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues. The application includes a Tree Removal request of 24 trees on the site. -APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were circulated for a 30- day period beginning on July 3, 2013 and closing on July 24, 2013. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and. (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. The public is invited to comment on the review period. July 24, 2013 Date of Determination NOTICE proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the Adopted By E2—E3Pg 166 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II ADDENDUM BACKGROUND Project Files: Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481 2. Related Files: Design Review DRC2007-00951 3. Description of Project: A request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007- 00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) to allow for the demolition of two residential structures, both previously conditioned for off -site relocation, for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of Eight Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jary Cockroft 14235 Farralon Court Fontana, CA 92336 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (GI) District Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Biane Winery site is a generally rectangular lot consisting of two separate parcels. The north to south dimensions are approximately 568 feet and 856 feet east to west. Most of the northern portion of the site is occupied by winery buildings. To the south, east,, and west are existing commercial/industrial buildings. To the north is the Santa Fe Railway and residential development north of the tracks. A rail line runs north to south just west of the project site. There is also a spur line that runs along the northern side of the winery. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner (909) 774-4312 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None. EXHIBIT I E2—E3Pg167 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481 Page 2 Proiect Histo On January 22, 2014, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration in connection with the approval of Design Review DRC2007-00951 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00951 entitled the applicant to partial -build option of the Biane Winery that would result in the demolition of several buildings on the western 6.51 acre parcel, including the Bottling Plant/Warehouse, Dry Wine Bottling Room, cooperage shop, restroom, lunch shelter, and foreman's residence buildings to allow room for the construction of a 122,304 square foot industrial warehouse building; the eastern 3.9 acre parcel was not a part of the project. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Design Review DRC2007- 00951 concluded that the project would have a "Less Than Significant Impact" or "No Impact" relating to the following factors/resources: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Hazards and Waste Materials, Land Use & Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities & Service Systems. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would have a "Less Than Significant [Impact] With Mitigation Incorporated" relating to the following factors/resources: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. However, with mitigation measures, the impacts would be reduced to a level of "Less Than Significant Impact." These mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Checklist and will, be applied to the project. Analysis Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the City may prepare an Addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Changes to previously approved project for which an EIR or negative declaration was adopted require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration if any of the following conditions are found to exist: (1) Substantial changes in the project require major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement.of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows: (a) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation E2—E3Pg 168 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481 Page 3 measure or alternative. An Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for Design Review DRC2007-00951 is appropriate in this case because the proposal entails a modification to the conditions of approval related to the demolition of two houses on the project site. As part of the analysis of project conditions associated with DRC2007-00951 a cultural resources Impacts Assessment (LSA, July 2009) was prepared. That Impacts Assessment identified that several buildings on site (i.e., the cooperage shop, foreman's residence, restroom, and lunch shelter) were determined to be non -Contributors to the site and could be demolished. The Impacts Assessment also determined that two residential buildings (i.e., the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence) were determined to be Contributors to the site. As such, the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures for DRC2007-00951 provide for the following: Planning Department Condition No. 7: The costs to relocate the two contributing residences shall be borne by the owner. The owner shall notify the City in writing once the relocation plan has been finalized. Planning Department Condition No.8: Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at a minimum an 8-inch by 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable location. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1: Prepare and affix identifying plaques to the relocated residences. This would consist of at a minimum an 8-inch by 10-inch durable plaque for both of the relocated residences to identify their original locations and historical association with the Biane Winery. The plaques would be affixed to the residences in a publicly viewable 'location. This would preserve a historical tie between the residences and the winery, mitigating the loss of their on -site historical association. Subsequent to project approval, the applicant researched the feasibility of relocating the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence and determined that it was difficult to find appropriate lots for the relocation and that the structural condition of the houses would make moving them difficult. To support the proposed modification to the Conditions of Approval and project Mitigation Measures a Review of Biane Winery Impacts Assessment (LSA, February 2016) was prepared. That assessment concludes that the two residences (i.e., the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence) derive their significance solely from their association with the winery. They are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood -framed houses and if they are relocated off -site, they would be out of context and their significance as contributing resources would be lost. Without the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence, the Winery would retain its National Register eligibility, and therefore, demolition of these structures would not be a significant impact to the historic property. The Addendum prepared for Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481 does not identify any additional impacts to any environmental factors/resources and none of the conditions noted above are present. Staff analyzed the proposed project and concluded that there are no substantial changes in the project which warrant major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; that no substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; and that there is no new information of substantial importance present which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration E2—E3Pg 169 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481 Page 4 was adopted. For example, demolition of the two residences will not have a significant impact to Cultural Resources according to the Review of Biane Winery Impacts Assessment prepared by LSA in February 2016. The Addendum to the original Mitigated Negative Declaration does not include any additional mitigations. The project will be required to incorporate into the project, and comply with, all of the mitigation measures described in the original Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum will be incorporated into the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration to explain the changes to the project. No additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of this Design Review application. DETERMINATION On the basis of this evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. (✓) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, in ding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed pro' t, n dendum was prepared. Prepared By: / A- Date: 40 �Ojl Reviewed By: APPLICANT CERTIFICATION Date: I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Addendum. I acknowledge that I have read this Addendum and agree to its determination. Further, I agree to the proposed E2-E3Pg 170 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Design Review Modification DRC2017-00481 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 mitigation measures to mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Print Name and Title: E2—E3Pg 171 RESOLUTION NO. 17-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 A REQUEST TO REVOKE DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2016-00345, APPROVED IN ERROR ON NOVEMBER 9, 2016, FOR A REQUEST TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRC2007-00951 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.14-08) FOR THE BIANE WINERY, A COMPLEX COMPRISED OF FIFTEEN (15) BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES AND THREE (3) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES LOCATED ON TWO (2) PARCELS WITH A COMBINED AREA OF 10.41 ACRES IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN HERMOSA AND ARCHIBALD AVENUES; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 209-201-19 AND 20. A. Recitals. 1. Jary Cockroft, for Biane Family Properties, filed an application for the Design Review Modification Revocation DRC2017-00480, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review Modification Revocation request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd of January 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Design Review DRC2007-00951, a request to modify the Biane Winery complex. 3. On the 9th day of November 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, a request to modify the conditions of approval for Design Review DRC2007-00951. 4. Following the Planning Commission action it was determined that the approval of Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 was in error and should have included an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 5. On the 28th day of June, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a public hearing for the item but because of an error in the public noticing, staff recommended and the Commission agreed that the item be continued to allow time for the item to be re -noticed to the July 26, 2017 meeting date. 6. On the 26th day of July 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: E2—E3Pg 172 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-70 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 (OF DRC2016-00345) — JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 2 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on July 26, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Eighth Street west of Hermosa Avenue and is presently improved with the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres; and b. The subject property is located in the General Industrial (GI) District; and C. The property to the north is in the Low Medium (LM) Residential District and is developed with the Santa Fe Railway and residential development north of the tracks; and, the properties to the south, east, and west are in the General Industrial (GI) District and are developed with industrial and commercial buildings; and d. The applicant requested a modification to the conditions of approval for Design Review DRC2007-00951; however, the modification to the applicable conditions requires an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and not only a revision to the projects conditions of approval. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. Circumstances under which the entitlement or permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no longer be met. The circumstances under which the entitlement for Design Review DRC2007-00951 was granted have not been changed by the applicant; and b. The entitlement or permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the entitlement or permit. The entitlement permitted under Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 was not issued on the basis of any misrepresentation by the applicant; and C. One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated. Design Review DRC2007-00951 was approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. None of the applicable conditions of approval have been fulfilled, nor have they been violated; and d. The use or structure for which the permit was granted has ceased to exist or has lost its legal nonconforming use status. Use of the project site has not changed since Design Review DRC2007-00951 was approved and the site is not considered to be legal nonconforming; and E2—E3Pg 173 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-70 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 (OF DRC2016-00345) — JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 3 e. The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of any code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute. The approval of DRC2007-00951 included an environmental assessment with an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Because the two applicable conditions of approval were also mitigation measures of the project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration revising them required an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, not just a revision to the projects conditions of approval, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and f. The improvement/use allowed by the permit has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a public nuisance. The improvements permitted under Design Review DRC2007-00951 have not become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor has the manner of operation constituted or created a public nuisance. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 22, 2014, in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007-00951. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less -than -significant. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, which fulfill the requirements and findings for Section 17.14.110 Revocation, this Commission hereby approves the application to revoke Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Department 1) Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, approved on November 9, 2016 through Planning Commission Resolution No. 16- 57, for a request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues is revoked. E2—E3Pg174 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-70 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 (OF DRC2016-00345) — JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 4 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WN ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of July 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E2—E3Pg175 RESOLUTION NO. 17-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00481 - A REQUEST TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRC2007-00951 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.14-08) TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, BOTH PREVIOUSLY CONDITIONED FOR OFF -SITE RELOCATION, FOR THE BIANE WINERY, A COMPLEX COMPRISED OF FIFTEEN (15) BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES AND THREE (3) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES LOCATED ON TWO (2) PARCELS WITH A COMBINED AREA OF 10.41 ACRES IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN HERMOSA AND ARCHIBALD AVENUES; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-201-19 AND 20. A. Recitals. 1. Jary Cockroft, for Biane Family Properties, filed an application for Design Review DRC2017-00481, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd of January 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved DRC2007-00951. 3. On the 28th day of June, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a public hearing for the item but because of an error in the public noticing, staff recommended and the Commission agreed that the item be continued to allow time for the item to be re -noticed to the July 26, 2017 meeting date 4. On the 26th of July 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on July 26, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a request to modify the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 to allow for the demolition of the wine maker's residence and caretaker residence located at the Biane Winery; and b. The subject property is located in the General Industrial (GI) District; and C. The property to the north is in the Low Medium (LM) Residential District and is E2—E3Pg176 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-71 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICAITON DRC2017-00481 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 2 developed with the Santa Fe Railway and residential development north of the tracks; and, the properties to the south, east, and west are in the General Industrial (GI) Residential District and are developed with industrial and commercial buildings; and d. A Review of the Biane Winery Impacts Assessment (LSA, February 12, 2016) concludes that the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence derive their significance solely from their association with the winery. They residences are not individually significant and are typical examples of small, wood -framed houses and if they are relocated off -site, they would be out of context and their significance as contributing resources would be lost; and e. Demolition of the wine maker's residence and the caretaker residence would not affect the National Register eligibility of the Biane Winery, and the demolition of these structures would not be a significant impact to the historic property. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use 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. General Plan Policy LU-16.1 incorporates historic preservation principles into the City's project review process with the goal of minimizing potential impacts to historic resources when developing and enforcing land use; and b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or the improvements in the vicinity. The two residences are interior to the project site and their demolition will not impact the public health or properties or improvements in the vicinity; and C. The application, which contemplates operation of the proposed use, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The demolition of the two residential structures and the ultimate development of the project site will comply with all applicable development standards of the Development Code. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 22, 2014, in connection with the approval of Design Review DRC2007-00951. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the City prepared an addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration because only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration have occurred. A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required because there are no new significant or severe effects; there are no substantial changes in circumstance with respect to the project; and, there is no new information of substantial importance that was not known or could have reasonably been known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted. An addendum to the previously approved MND is appropriate in this case because a minor technical change to the project description in the original MND would be sufficient and there is no evidence that any of the conditions that would require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration are present. First, there is no indication that the minor changes to the project will create new significant environmental effects or cause a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The project includes revising Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 Planning Department Conditions of Approval 7 and 8 and Cultural E2—E3Pg177 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-71 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICAITON DRC2017-00481 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 3 Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1 to allow for the demolition of two residential structures. Revising the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures does not amount to a major change and would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the MND. Second, there have been no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken. The characteristics of the site and the surrounding properties are similar to those previously existing, and do not indicate that there will, be new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Finally, the City has received no new information of substantial importance that was unknown or could not have been known previously that indicates the project will have any significant effects not discussed in the MND, that any previously identified impacts will be substantially more severe, that any mitigation measure previously found infeasible would now be feasible, or that any mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. All remaining mitigation measures established for the original project will be addressed during the plan check, construction, and inspection of the project site during development. Additional or different mitigation measures are not required. In summary, the proposed project is a modification to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to allow for the demolition of two residential structures on the Biane Winery site whose development was thoroughly analyzed for environmental impacts and for which mitigation measures were established. Although the proposed project involves a modification to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to allow for the demolition of two residential structures, there are no substantial changes in the project, its circumstances, or the information on hand that would suggest that the previous environmental review is inadequate. 5. Based upon the findings and the conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application, subject to each and every condition set forth below, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) All applicable conditions of approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 shall apply. 2) Planning Department Condition of Approval No. 7, contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 is hereby deleted in its entirety. 3) Planning Department Condition of Approval No. 8, contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 is hereby deleted in its entirety. 4) Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1, contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-08 is hereby deleted in its entirety. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. E2—E3Pg 178 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-71 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICAITON DRC2017-00481 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA M ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of July 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E2—E3Pg 179