Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-08 - Agenda Packet - PC-HPCIrVvCIvior-M 09 LV 1 l 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 individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. 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 October 25, 2017 C2. Consideration to adopt Adjourned Meeting (Workshop) Minutes of October 25, 2017 Page 1 of 6 IV V V r-mocim 03 LU l I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA D. PUBLIC HEARINGS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chairman may open the meeting for public input. D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES — A request for a historic landmark designation for a single-family residence in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, and Minor Exception DRC2017-00131. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. 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. El. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20080 -- MANNING HOMES — A review of a proposed 20-lot subdivision on a parcel of about 5.43 acres of land in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related files: Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131, and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. E2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129 — MANNING HOMES — A request for site plan and architectural review of 19 single-family residential homes and relocation of an existing single-family residence in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081- Page 2 of 6 1-Iv V r-mor-M oY Lv 1 I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 01; Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131, and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. E3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2017-00130 — MANNING HOMES — A request to reduce the average lot size from 8,000 square feet to 7,977 square feet in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related files: Tentative Tract Map 20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131, and Landmark Designation DRC2017- 00485. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. E4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00131 — MANNING HOMES — A request to increase the maximum wall height from 6 feet to a maximum of 7 Mi feet for a perimeter wall that will be constructed in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081- 01; Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. E5. TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00755 — GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. — A request to allow for a one (1) year time extension of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT17444) related to a 13-unit condominium development on 2.17 acres of land in the Low Medium (LM) District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Archibald Avenue 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street — APN: 0202-131-27, 61 and 62. On October 10, 2007, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to the project within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. E6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP - A request to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to increase the allowable FAR from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the specific plan to allow for the construction a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains remnants of an Page 3 of 6 CITY OF RANCHO CU 79 NOVEmlr r-m 05 LU 1 f HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, -79, -84, -89 and -90. Related Files: Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. E7. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2016-00670 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP - A review of a proposal to construct a 232,058-square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, -79, -84, -89 and -90. Related Files: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP - A review of a proposal to remove 128 existing trees on a vacant property to allow for the construction of a 232,058- square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, -79, -84, -89 and -90. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. 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 Page 4 of 6 nuvr- or-K 01 LV 1 f HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA November 2, 2017 seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Lois J. chrader Planning Commission Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 av address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Plannin Commission, please come forwa R#S ei�a� gsia4l�eroP a 2toSdd4�frdl� a r d speak into the microphone. UNad?IWA>3I Q6,9Qr��Per� 0YffP4"- 9 ri0k:,WU�ro`1 1 3nrs� t�l�' i a It important to list your name, dr�ogtig% f ' �fi t�i � r� � er f��, gm �, �r���gr } lily li ited to 5 minutes per individu Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Ifyou wish -� ��,,,,.,>a��;,, _,.,_;fe.., mt nn the -a-cl- w opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. nts." There is 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. Page 5 of 6 NOVEMBER 8, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 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 $2,725 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.CitvofRC.us. Page 6 of 6 Vicinity Map Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 2017 D10 E1-E4 Qi U lase Line Ch oothill krow 8th I E51 E cr- Fx ¢ = ! N 6th € s � i w � 4th C m s Base Line Church Foothill L N � Arrow a W, y ----- 6th w 4th �t Meeting Location: City Hall/Council Chambers 10600 Civic Center Drive D1: Landmark Designation DRC2017-00486 El-E4: SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017- 00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131 E5: Time Extension DRC2017-00755 E6-E8: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931, Development Review DRC2016-00670, Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671 OCTOBER 25, 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 7:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Oaxaca X Vice Chairman Macias X_ Commissioner Fletcher A Commissioner Munoz X Commissioner Wimberly —X— Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett: City Planner, Albert Espinoza, Asst. City Engineer, Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; 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 individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Kevin Kenley provided a fJyerlinvitation to a haunted house. He indicated he and others spoke with various Councilmembers, Jeff Bloom, DCM, Economic/Community Development and Ms. Burnett: City Planner and the Council asked for more data and to watch and see how it goes. He said not all residential haunted houses are like the one that received complaints. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 of 4 Cl—Pgl v%, 1 Uar-rt Acu, 4u l I 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 October 11, 2017 C2 Consideration to adopt Adjourned Meeting (Workshop) Minutes of October 11, 2017 Moved by Munoz seconded by Wimberly to adopt the Consent calendar. Carried 4-0-1 (Fletcher absent) D. COMMISSION BUSINEWHISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES: None COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Vice Chairman Macias said he was approached by a concerned citizen regarding haunted houses He advised the person to call the police if they observed problems Candyce Burnett. City Planner suggested people should call the police, take pictures and give them to Planning staff and talk to their neighbors to see if they too have concerns and report to us. Commissioner Munoz said he had a concern regarding the Council's decision on the proposed ordinance re: haunted houses in residential areas. He said he was not happy and felt blindsided/the Commission should have been informed. Ms. Burnett said the Council took "no action" on the ordinance and put it on hold until staff could present more research and hard data of this year's event(s). They directed staff to watch and observe haunted houses this week and pass along the information to Fire and the Police. She said staff is looking for feedback to give to the Council. She said we will have teams visiting the haunted houses and looking at the parking. trash, participants behavior, etc. She said we are also Page 2 of 4 C1—Pg2 W%, I Vmcm Lul LU 1 I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA watching social media so that we can note additional sites that may pop up that we were previously unaware of, Commissioner Wimberly also expressed concern. Chairman Oaxaca thanked Ms. Burnett for responding to his questions regarding hotel projects in the City and the related calls for service. He asked staff to bring back a report so that the Commission could be more informed. Ms Burnett said the December 131" agenda will include update reports regarding the hotels and haunted houses. E. ADJOURNMENT i�l��►Ti� The Commission adjourned to a workshop held in the Rains Room to discuss Pre - Application Review DRC2017-00697 — Van Daele Homes, Inc. and secondly, The North Eastern Sphere Annexation Specific Plan DRC2015-00750. Those minutes will appear separately. 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 October 19, 2017, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 64954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Lois J. Schrader Planning Commission Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 of 4 C1—Pg3 OCTOBER 25, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 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 officlal 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 $2,725 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.CjtvofRC.us. Page 4 of 4 C1--Pg4 OCTOBER 25, 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 Roll Call: Chairman Oaxaca X 7:25 P.M Vice Chairman Macias X` Commissioner Fletcher A. JXi Commissioner Munoz Commissioner Wimberly X! Additional Staff Present-, Candyce Burnett, City Planner, Tom Grahn, Associate Planner- Albert Espinoza, Assf_ City Engineer, Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary_ Mike Smith, Senior Planner Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner, Rob Ball, Fire Marshall 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 individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Chairman Oaxaca noted correspondence was received opposing Item C2 and was received by the Secretary and entered into the record. C. DISCUSSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION C1. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2017-00697 — VAN DAEI_E HOMES, INC, — A Pre - Application Review of a proposed mixed use development consisting of 296 units consisting of bungalows, townhomes, and flats on a property consisting of multiple parcels with a Page 1 of 8 C2—Pg 1 OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA combined area of 167 acres 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. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and east of the future alignment of The Vine, APNs: 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073, Mike Smith: Senior Planner introduced the project and gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted the plotting_ variety of architectural style, the project is within the limits allowed with the specific plan parking requirements. He noted a variety of parking solutions including The Vine is allowed. He said the applicant complied with the ':no wall/fences" requirement. He said staff did not receive the rear elevations. He said an error was made in in his density calculation for the project; he has corrected it and therefore no revision is needed by the applicant, Eric Scheck, Vice President of Operations said he hopes to submit in 1 month. He gave a brief summary of the various building styles proposed He said the project is overparked on the standard floorplan and the bungalow would be overparked even with the 3'd floor option. He said the landscaping is focused on the interior paseo connection He said passive uses are added into paseo connections as well as a dog park area: quiet sealing and circulation between the units He said the plan promotes pedestrian traffic. A representative of the applicant presented conceptual building elevations for the Commissioners review and comment. Mr_ Scheck said they are looking into colors and may add additional color schemes Commissioner Munoz said it is a good product and he likes the articulation and the design looks pretty good. He noted the challenge is plotting and setbacks and keeping continuity within the project. He said he likes the contemporary take on the heritage and Spanish designs. Commissioner Wimberly agreed. Commissioner Macias said he is relatively comfortable -they need to make some tweaks and then proceed, Page 2 of 8 C2—Pg 2 OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Chairman Oaxaca said he Ickes the contemporary treatment of the flats. He said he had a concern about the comments for the heritage design but it appears they made it work. He said they kept it consistent with the modern environment they are trying to create. He said the Spanish design looks modern but maintains the Spanish features. He said they need to carry out all the features on all 4 elevations. He said the applicant is moving in the right direction. Mr. Smith asked the Commission if they saw a need for additional materials. Commissioner Munoz said yes and he would like to see more detail. Chairman Oaxaca said it would be helpful to have actual samples of the materials and color schemes for reference_ Commissioner Wimberly agreed that all elevations should be fully articulated with materials and provided for the Commission to see. Chairman Oaxaca noted a staff comment about the set back of structures along the Vine- He asked if this has been resolved. Mr Smith noted that because a detailed plan has not been provided yet: staff just made the note that they should take advantage of the setbacks included in the specific plan and that we want to frame the street. He said staff will be looking for that in the final submitted plans 7: 53 PM C2, NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00750—A Planning Commission Workshop to review the proposed conservation areas of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project (NESAP). Related applications include: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00751, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750, North Eastern Sphere Annexation DRC2015- 00732, and related Environmental Impact Report. Tom Grahn. Associate Planner introduced the project and stated the workshop is focused on the conservation area. Page 3 of 8 C2—Pg 3 OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Chairman Oaxaca noted correspondence received and filed by the Secretary (see public comment section). David Sargent of Sargent Town Planning gave a PowerPoint presentation. (copy on file). Candyce Burnett, City Planner said much is being said on social media about this project. She reported that today staff received a County Referral for a major expansion of a Budhist Temple — 23 buildings of about 157, 000 square feet and 4 in excess of 50 feet in height. She said these types of applications are one of the reasons we are doing this annexation. She said if the noted project moves forward. it will have a huge impact on that area. Brock Ortega of Dudek (environmental consultants) said patches of development that could be allowed if this area remains under County control would be expensive to maintain and problematic for conservation. Commissioner Munoz asked if the K-rats are found there or could they exist there Mr Ortega said both. The habitat could support them and RAFSS. He said it is designated a critical habitat. He said his team performed hundreds of trap nights with no presence of SBKR. Mr. Sargent noted that the project area trapping was 5-10 miles away from original area identified by the State as SBKR habitat. The conservation priority area is 3176 acres. The identified area was changed. Mr. Ortega said the current hydrological processes/Water flows are not present to sustain the soil conditions for SBKR. but it's possible they could in the future. He said they also looked -for the California Gnatcatcher. Mr. Sargent noted that the neighborhood footprint has decreased significantly and the conservation area has grown as a result Mr. Ortega said this plan conserves the largest amount of RAFSS area, 400-500 acres. Rob Ball, Fire Marshal. said the Fire Department has looked at fire history maps and they will look at the plan. Page 4 of 8 C2—Pg 4 OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Mr, Sargent noted the advantage of a comprehensive management scheme -there is active maintenance of open spaces that would include removal of some dead underbrush, non-native species, weeds, etc. He said this can help the health of the habitat and remove some of the fuel load. Mr. Ortega commented on resource management- the plan would have to be developed to remove weeds, open areas suitable for SBKR and allow for the reintroduction of SBKR Albert Espinoza, Assistant City Engineer asked when the conservation area is created who will maintain it and pay for it. Commissioner Munoz asked how does the bottom half pay for the top half. Mr Ortega said the inland Empire Conservation District covers all of this far into the forest and to the east and south and they have the capability to do it and the resources. Commissioner Munoz said they need to paint the story forthose who already have concerns about their taxes. Commissioner Macias asked how long this will take and how does it work over space and time -what is the timeline after an agreement is reached with fish and game and what if the real estate market changes -and development changes He asked how much will it impact the Sphere. Ms. Burnett commented that every project has potential to create impacts. In many cases the developer must purchase mitigation lands and pay fees to maintain those lands. The developer has to accept that as part of his project. As development comes in, lands are purchased and a new land value is created —it provides a new credit system. There are conservation entities that will accept these. The more that is developed_ more mitigation lands will be required. This is a specific plan with an EiR and will consider maximum density so if an amendment is proposed because of changing conditions it will come back to the Planning Commission and then to City Council. Commissioner Macias said we are trying to introduce a friendly enemy (SBKR), John Baucke (consultant) said we would have to get a sign off —it is a work in progress first have to determine the impacts, then mitigations, then identify mitigation sites (types, values -some greater than others) then S values of mitigation costs. He said Mitigation land values are higher than the developed land value, Mr. Ortega said lower value biotic resources may give us lower mitigation ratios Page 5 of 8 C2—Pg 5 OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Mr_ Sargent said that if it is not just conserved but enhanced. we will get better value and we are getting rid of a gravel pit_ He said parcels will be designed for conservation and others for developers so it will help with the conservation. He said essentially, the lower part of the plan (development) will pay for the upper part (conservation/mitigation lands). Chairman Oaxaca said they will have to explain the "no project" alternative of the E1R. He said it would have to be clear that it would be worse for the habitat if we do nothing, this is what it will look like and what that will mean to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Munoz said if we don't do this. then it stays with the County. Ms. Burnett reiterated that there are active applications the County is considering for development. Mike Smith. Senior Planner said that staff regularly gets questions about development in the Sphere and putting this plan into place would settle that. Mr, Ortega confirmed water flows under bridge will be minimal (about a foot), Mr. Espinoza asked if there is —sufficient parking for tratlheads Mr. Sargent replied -yes Commissioner Munoz said the current problems experienced at the North Etiwanda Preserve are more than what was anticipated_ Mr. Sargent said programs would have to be developed as well as habitat management plan. Commissioner Munoz said he has a much better understanding of the proposal., it is a logical plan Mr Sargent said it is a balancing act but the plan will set up the framework. 9:13 PM D. ADJOURNMENT Page 6 of 8 C2—Pg 6 OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 19, 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 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. 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. Listen ng devices are avai lable for the hearing impaired. 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 Page 7 of 8 C2—Pg 7 OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 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 fife 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.CitVofRC.us. Page 8 of 8 C2—Pg 8 DATE: November 8, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner CW INITIATED BY: Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES — A request for a historic landmark designation for a single-family residence in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, and Minor Exception DRC2017-00131. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485 to the City Council. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is a rectangular -shaped parcel of 5.43 acres with dimensions of about 741 feet (east to west) and about 320 feet (north to south). It is located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street and is currently developed with a single-family residence, a garage and a small storage building located toward the middle of the site (Exhibit B). The residence was built in 1892, designed with Folk Victorian elements, and was originally surrounded by citrus groves. The house has maintained its historical value and qualifies for designation as a historic landmark. However, the surrounding historical setting has not due to the removal of the citrus groves, surrounding home tracts, a park, and alterations to the historic period irrigation features. More recently, the lot was used to grow Christmas trees, most of which are dead or in poor health. The majority of the lot is now covered with disturbed dirt. The existing land uses on, and the General Plan and Zoning designations of, the subject property and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Single -Family Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Residential (L) District Residences DwellingUnits Per Acre)Low North Single -Family Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Residential (L) District Residences DwellingUnits Per Acre)Low South Single -Family Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Residential (L) District Residences DwellingUnits Per Acre)Low D1—Pgt PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 2 Single -Family Parks and East Residences and Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Open Space (OS) and Low Hermosa Park DwellingUnits Per Acre Residential (L) District West Single -Family Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Residential (L) District Residences DwellingUnits Per Acre)Low ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing an overall project consisting of a 5.43-acre lot subdivision into 20 single-family residential lots (related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080 and constructing 19 single-family homes at the project site (related file: Design Review DRC2017-00129). In conjunction with this, the existing house will be repaired, historically landmarked and moved to Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. A new garage and accessory structure are proposed to the rear of the house's new location which will architecturally match the existing house. The historic house is proposed to be relocated onto Lot 1 which is the lot in the northwest corner of the project site. The house would be visible from both the new public street and Teak Way. In addition to the relocation of the house. The existing garage and accessory structure will be demolished — these structures have no significant historical value. The applicant will build a new detached garage and accessory structure for the historical home. The new structures will be positioned to the rear of the historical house and would architecturally match the historical home in color, design, roof pitch and materials. Landmark Designation Application Analysis: The applicant is proposing to designate the existing single-family home as a historical landmark and relocate the house to Lot 1. The purpose of the designation is to preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate a significant feature that contributes to the cultural and aesthetic benefit of Rancho Cucamonga. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. in February of 2017, the property was cultivated with trees or vines since at least 1895 and the house was built in 1892. The home was owned by R.R. Cochran from at least 1895 to 1898 and he likely planted the first citrus groves in the project area. From 1895 to at least 1948, the property was owned by one or more of the Phelps family which was one of at least 40 pioneer settlers in the Hermosa area. After 1948, various owners unrelated to the Phelps family owned the land. Sometime between 1980 and 1995 the citrus grove was removed on the subject property and by 2005 the beginnings of a Christmas tree farm can be seen from aerial photographs. Today, most of the Christmas trees have been removed or are dying. The applicant proposes to remove the Christmas trees, none of which are heritage trees. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, the architectural style of the house is Folk Victorian and retains a high degree of exterior integrity considering its age. Features that define its character include the stone foundation, cross gables roof form, horizontal wood siding, ornate fish scale wood shingles, wood window and door trim, wood and glass front door and chamfered wood porch posts with decorative wood spandrels suspended from the porch ceiling. The applicant proposes to move the historic home and in that process any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. A condition of approval has been added that states that if the severity of the deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The applicant is proposing to demolish the detached garage and shed which D1—Pg2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HISTORIC LANDMARK DRC2017-00485 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 3 do not contribute the house's historic significance. A new detached accessory structure and garage are proposed to the rear of the home on Lot 1. These structures are proposed to be compatible with the house's colors, design and materials. The relocation of the home is proposed on what will become the northeast corner of Teak Way and the cul-de-sac street. The house will become much more visible to the public and the applicant has stated intent to include a plaque in front of the home that provides some historical information. The applicant also has included four citrus trees along Teak Way on Lot 1 to further the historic story. The Cultural Resources assessment stated that the house was eligible for designation as a point of interest. Staff believes that the residence demonstrates a relatively high degree of architectural detail and ornamentation and is an important example of early Cucamonga history. Staff has determined that the structure's history and architecture rises to the eligibility of a historical landmark designation. The consultant at LSA had no objections to this determination and in fact was in support of the recommendation. Both staff and the consultant at LSA agree that designating this home as a historic landmark will provide a benefit to the community by enhancing the long-term preservation of this historical resource. Per Section 17.18.020 of the Development Code, the City Council may designate a property as a historic landmark if it meets one of five criteria and must retain integrity from their period of significance with respect to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these factors. A proposed landmark need not retain all such original aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance. Neither the deferred maintenance of a proposed landmark, nor its dilapidated condition shall, on its own, be equated with a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be judged with reference to the particular characteristics that support the eligibility of the property. The five criteria are as follows: Criteria 1: It is or was once associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criteria 2: It is or was once associated with persons important to local, California, or national history. Criteria 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Criteria 4: It represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criteria 5: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. D1—Pg3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HISTORIC LANDMARK DRC2017-00485 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 4 The subject property meets one of the requirements as discussed below. Criteria 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Facts: The dwelling is a good example of Folk Victorian and has retained a high degree of exterior integrity considering its age. The ornate details such as fish scale wood shingles and decorative wood spandrels suspended from the porch ceiling are architecturally unique for the time period in which the house was built. The house does possess high artistic values which embodies a type and period of construction. Similar homes with less artistic detail and value have been deemed Historic Landmarks within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the above -noted criteria, per the Development Code, Historic Landmarks must retain integrity from their period of significance with respect to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these factors. A proposed landmark need not retain all such original aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance. Neither the deferred maintenance of a proposed landmark, nor its dilapidated condition shall, on its own, be equated with a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be judged with reference to the particular characteristics that support the eligibility of the property. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment completed by LSA, the proposed landmark retains high integrity from their period of significance with respect to setting, location, materials, workmanship, association, design and feeling. It retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance. C. AB52 Tribal Consultation: In accordance with AB52, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians were contacted on June 20, 2017 to determine their interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians contacted staff for further details and information regarding the project. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requested some language be added to the proposed mitigations. Staff confirmed that the language would be included in the mitigations since the language proposed was already part of staff's standard mitigations to protect cultural resources. No further consultation was requested after the information was provided and no other tribes reached out to staff requesting consultation. D. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the applicant's environmental consultant, Applied Planning, prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was peer reviewed by Placeworks, an independent environmental consultant under contract with the City. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biological DI—Pg4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HISTORIC LANDMARK DRC2017-00485 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 5 Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Waste Materials, and Noise 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. FISCAL IMPACT: The rehabilitation and relocation of the historic landmark and the improvements to the overall project site will temporarily increase construction -related employment and facilitate the applicant's sale of the property A positive fiscal impact for the City will occur through increased sales tax revenue generated by new owner's patronage of local businesses. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the application, the historic landmark designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code which seek to preserve historic resource whenever possible without impeding the development of the subject property with single-family residences consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Map CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular 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. To date, one phone call has been received regarding the overall project notifications. The individual that called was a property owner within 660 feet of the project site and wanted more information regarding the project details. Staff provided the information and no objection to the project was received. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Vicinity and Aerial Map Exhibit B - Site Utilization Map Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Landscape Plan Exhibit E - Elevation Exhibit F - Initial Study Parts 1, II and III MMP Draft Resolution Recommending Approval for Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485 CB:NC/Is D1—Pg5 Vicinity Map SUBTTM 20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017- 001309 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Project Site Base Line Church Fo Arrow 8th 'o t9 6th 4th Or Base Line Church Foothill Arrow e D e � 6th w 4th * City Hall EXHIBIT A D1-Pg6 's ° ��} +'� r "Of i, SAN RN5 RD1 L .�' ,t \ �^ / / .REM/p/NTC1. ?I- • LOS P.NWc�.E F RANFHO C CAMgNGi�J \ ii._ / ti ! �.P M`i..P�)((S ! •'. ON Tk RIO T P DAM C/ % N, 1 J ¢>SANTA ANAL\moo. irr' 1 Io Paint Fnrmtn. 0 /R t. ...�. 1901 Street,- ; n < D Deer Canyon Schoo3 m Humosa Park _.-. - Jonquil Dr. e - „r Project Location . * r.....: ;s- �` 1 Street 1! xrr*m u.(E Source. Goode Earth; To o,wm Wildflower Productions): APPIled Plannln . Inc. r,4 ^ appIiedp)Im m 11 110 Project Location Tentative Tract Map 20080 D1—Pg7 ( ( § ! ! ! \ !-� \\ |i§§§(\\ Hind | eQ\§ a\ igxR @. baOeGQE§E22««< EXHIBIT B � gg� g i.i L �. = 111 m .. co 1 .(V61 ml I-L 0� 4 -OUDlnSTM 03H7V1=0 A-M-Vd '-ol_ c1flisy- I $ a SZ0 � - n w Q i Z Q p w' Mod ISO' �C4j W�pci� Q F. J Q C EXHIBIT C D1—Pg9 AHVNIWn3lid OI 1H. '�% d 1,1W 1 1% � I lDIA.VVSOM3H I I EXHIBIT D vM0, -Y Iff SNO11039 V A N3 I AA VSOWd Amok. i L Dl-Pgl 1 'Ari -..l, Source, LSAAssociates: Hamilton Biological 001 me4 appliedplomiing Figure 1.3-2 Existing Site Conditions D1-Pg13 Victoria and Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT2O080) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration z Prepared for City of Rancho Cucamonga October 2017 t1^ n applied EXHIBIT F D1-Pg14 Table of Contents Section page Preface: Project Description 1.1 Overview................................................................................................. P-1 1.2 Project Location......................................................................................P-1 1.3 Existing Land Uses ...................................................... ........................... P-1 1.4 Existing Land Use Designations.............................................................P-5 1.5 Project Elements.....................................................................................P-8 1.6 Project Opening Year..........................................................................P-19 1.7 Project Objectives................................................................................P-19 1.8 Discretionary Approvals and Permits....................................................P-20 Part I: Environmental Information Form Part IL Environmental Checklist Form Part III: Mitigation Monitoring Program Appendix A: Variance Request Appendix B: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Appendix C: Biological Resource Surveys/Arborist Reports Appendix D: Cultural Resource Survey Appendix E: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix F: Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Appendix G: Hydrology Calculations/Water Quality Management Plan Appendix H: Noise Impact Analysis Appendix I: Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Will Serve Letter Appendix J: AB 52 Consultation Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table of Contents Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page i D1—Pg15 List of Figures and Tables Fi-gure Page 1.2-1 Project Location......................................................................... Preface, Page P-2 1.3-1 Existing Land Uses................................................................... Preface, Page P-3 1.3-2 Existing Site Conditions............................................................Preface, Page P-4 1.4-1 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations..........................Preface, Page P-6 1.4-2 Existing Zoning Designations.................................................... Preface, Page P-7 1.5-1 Site Plan Concept.................................................................... Preface, Page P-11 1.5-2 Architectural Concepts........................................................... Preface, Page P-13 1.5-3 Landscape Plan...................................................................... Preface, Page P-14 1.5-4 Landscape Plan Palette.......................................................... Preface, Page P-15 12-1 Noise Barrier Location and Orientation ................................... Section III, Page 50 Table Page 1.5-1 Project Construction Schedule .................................................. Preface, Page P-8 1.5-2 Summary of Construction Equipment Use by Activity ............... Preface, Page P-9 3-1 Construction -Source Air Pollutant Emissions Summary........... Section II, Page 10 3-2 Operational -Source Air Pollutant Emissions Summary ............ Section II, Page 11 3-3 Construction -Source Localized Emissions (Unmitigated) ......... Section II, Page 13 3-4 Construction -Source Localized Emissions (Mitigated) ............. Section II, Page 14 3-5 Operational -Source Localized Emissions Summary .................Section II, Page 14 7-1 Annual Project GHG Emissions Summary ...............................Section II, Page 33 12-1 Construction Equipment Noise Reference Levels ...................Section II, Page 52 12-2 Relative Increase in Noise Levels from Increased Traffic .......Section ll, Page 57 16-1 Project Trip Generation Summary ........................................... Section II, Page 71 III-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program ................................................... Section III, Page 3 Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table of Contents Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page ii D1—Pg16 Preface: Project Description D1-Pg17 PREFACE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 OVERVIEW The Project (SUBTT20080) proposes the development of a 20-lot residential subdivision, to include 19 new single-family homes and the relocation of one existing residence within the site. The approximately 5.43-acre Project site is located in the northerly portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Gross residential density proposed by the Project is 3.68 dwelling units/acre (DWAC). 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION As shown at Figure 1.2-1, the Project site is located at the northwest corner of Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue, approximately one half mile southerly of Interstate 210, and approximately four miles westerly of Interstate 15. 1.3 EXISTING LAND USES Project site and vicinity land uses are depicted at Figure 1.3-1 and are described below. 1.3.1 Project Site Land Use The Project site has an agricultural history, and is extensively disturbed. Most recently, the Project site accommodated a tree farm but now sits fallow. Trees remaining within the Project site are either cut, dead, or in poor health. None of the existing trees are candidates for preservation or relocation.' There is one single-family residence on -site (the 'Phelps" residence), a detached garage, and a small storage shed. The Phelps residence is considered a local Landmark, and will be preserved and relocated to proposed Lot 1 in the westerly portion of the Project site. All other surface features will be removed or demolished as part of the Project site preparation activities. Figure 1.3-2 illustrates the existing conditions of the Project site. ' Please refer to the February 2, 2017 Arborist Report, and March 30, 2017 Arborist Report Update presented at IS/MND Appendix C. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page P-1 D1—Pg18 !#�i� 3 N t ISI 1 ✓.� d[ ` SANeERNNiRDI,fO t�l / / r /.—Xa AREM NT C•)- I I '� • �J/ �' �. ' C•{LOS AN E ! ! �ANFHO C CAMONGA . ONTGR10 (V�L,,! f/ � ,jam � � ._. _. �c• � r Hy,�ys-:;.. y� : � 1 ✓tz -_,.3 a 5•,9 � r � \ ray?.°. ' ••+I CJ5ANTiA ANA.• Point Fermin 0 iR Ayy,N C� E •"y� `t:,,"'y""� N Source � appliedpltiI�[IM.� Figure 1.2-1 Project Location D1—Pg19 n^ Figure 1.3-1 app l i eel p l a n n i n g Existing Land Uses D1-Pg20 Source: LSAAssociates; Hamittori Biological �� appliedl_)I(II)I Iiii,; Figure 1.3-2 Existing Site Conditions D1-Pg21 1.3.2 Vicinity Land Uses Properties to the north, south, and west of the Project site are developed with single-family residences. Easterly of the Project site, across Hermosa Avenue, is Hermosa Park. 1.4 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations are presented at Figures 1.4-1 and 1.4-2, respectively. 1.4.1 Project Site Land Use Designations The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use designation of the Project site is Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC). Zoning designation of the site is Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC). The Project proposes development of the 5.43-acre Project site with up to 20 single-family residences. The Project's proposed single-family residential uses and proposed residential density of 3.68 DU/AC are permitted under the Project site's existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations. The Project does not propose or require any General Plan or Zoning amendments. 1.4.2 Vicinity Land Use Designations The General Plan Land Use designation of properties to the north, south, and west of the Project site is "Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 MAC)". Zoning designation of these properties is "Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC)." Easterly of the Project site, across Hermosa Avenue, is Hermosa Park which is designated as a "Park" General Plan Land Use and Zoned "Open Space" (OS). Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-5 D1—Pg22 Legend —••—••— Project Site :ow120-40otuaa Gov. Medium (4 0 - 8 0 Ou+aq Medium fe 0 - 14.0 Gu,ac) SchoolS (0 ICI - 0 20 FAR( ?arks Scarce' CWor RancFn applied,;: .�r.rla2l pSrw� .+ Hermosa Park Deor Canyon School •Project Site• i r a 7 I Figure 1.4-1 General Plan Land Use Designations D1—Pg23 Legend ^� Prajecl Silo LOW Res ennal0 Lowbledt m RevUential (LM) Medium Reildenllal ("I Open Space.OSI Flood Con!IUI IPC) Source�Lt, I RnncMC..me,e Zoning M., A,,I,,d Plann,, lnc applied-:.innii� 210 Freeway - I II Hermosa Park Deer Canyon School LPro;-c .Silts i ~ 1 I Figure 1.4-? Gxisting Zoning Designabons D1-Pg24 1.5 PROJECT ELEMENTS 1.5.1 Construction Information 1.5.1.1 Site Preparation The Phelps residence located within the Project site is considered a local Landmark, and will be preserved and relocated to proposed Lot 1 located within the westerly portion of the Project site. All other surface features will be removed or demolished as part of the Project site preparation activities. The Project site would be grubbed, rough -graded, and fine -graded in preparation of building construction. Any debris generated during site preparation activities would be disposed of and/or recycled consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Existing grades within the Project site would be modified to establish suitable building pads and to facilitate site drainage. 1.5.1.2 Construction Schedule The anticipated Project construction schedule is presented at Table 1.5-1. Table 1.5-1 Proiert Construction Srheriule Activity Start Date End Date Number of Days Total Demolition 1/1/2018 1/10/2018 8 Site Preparation 1/11/2018 1/24/2018 10 Grading 1/25/2018 2/14/2018 15 Building Construction 3/1/2018 2/1/2019 242 Paving 6/16/2018 6/29/2018 10 Architectural Coating 6/1/2018 2/l/2019 176 source: i-ocuseo Air Uuaufy ano ureennouse uas tmissions Analysis for t ract Z0080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. 1.5.1.3 Construction Equipment Construction equipment use by activity is presented at Table 1.5-2. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment use represents a reasonable approximation of daily construction activities. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-8 D1—Pg25 Table 1.5-2 Summary of Construction Eauinment Use by Activity Activity Equipment Type Equipment Pieces Hours per day Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 Excavators 3 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Grading Excavators 1 8 Graders 1 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 Forklifts 3 8 Generator Sets 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 Welders 1 8 Paving Pavers 2 8 Paving Equipment 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. 1.5.1.4 Construction Traffic Management Plan Temporary and short-term traffic detours and traffic disruptions could result during Project construction activities. Accordingly, the Project Applicant would be responsible for the preparation and submittal of a construction area traffic management plan (Plan) to be reviewed and approved by the City. Typical elements and information incorporated in the Plan would include but would not be limited to: Name of on -site construction superintendent and contact phone number. • Identification of Construction Contract Responsibilities - For example, for excavation and grading activities, describe the approximate depth of excavation, and quantity of soil import/export (if any). Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Project Description Page P-9 D1—Pg26 • Identification and Description of Truck Routes -to include the number of trucks and their staging location(s) (if any). . Identification and Description of Material Storage Locations (if any). . Location and Description of Construction Trailer (if any). Identification and Description of Traffic Controls - Traffic controls shall be provided per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) if the occupation or closure of any traffic lanes, parking lanes, parkways or any other public right-of-way is required. If the right-of-way occupation requires configurations or controls not identified in the MUTCD, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval. All right-of-way encroachments would require permitting through the City. • Identification and Description of Parking -Estimate the number of workers and identify parking areas for their vehicles. • Identification and Description of Maintenance Measures - Identify and describe measures taken to ensure that the work site and public right-of-way would be maintained (including dust control). The Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first grading permit. The Plan and its requirements would also be required to be provided to all contractors as one component of building plan/contract document packages. 1.5.2 Site Plan Concept Figure 1.5-1 presents the Project Site Plan Concept. The Project proposes the development of 20 single-family homes (19 new residences and relocation of the existing Phelps residence). Lot sizes within the Project site would range from 7,382 square feet to 11,294 square feet, with an average lot size of 7,977 square feet. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Standards for the Low (L) Residential Zone require an average lot size of 8,000 square feet. (Development Code Table 17.36.010-1, Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts). The Applicant has submitted a Variance Request to allow for the Project's average lot size (7,977 square feet) versus the 8,000 square feet average required under the Development Code. The Variance Request is presented at IS/MND Appendix A. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-10 D1—Pg27 }p��:EL+' I -71/i {=••.CELJ .r.4CELA t-t.El1' --. ELTM, SMLE FAMLY rsr. -HED .1-MLIEVTIAL , ra - n0010 appliedplanniing Inc YV'lCf011L4 4STRLET eksTm, 'SMLE FAMILY �6. DEFACHED FIESI1Jvra6Lt- u Figure 1.5-1 Site Plan Concept D1—Pg28 1.5.3 Architectural Design Concepts Preliminary architectural design concepts depict typical contemporary single-family residential uses. The Project proposes three primary single-family residential product types (California Ranch, Spanish, and Tuscan) and variants of each type. Project architectural concepts are illustrated at Figure 1.5-2. Materials and color finishes have been chosen to be compatible with surrounding land uses. All Project architectural designs would be subject to review and approval by the City. 1.5.4 Landscape Concept The Project landscape concept and plant palette is presented at Figures 1.5-3 and 1.5-4. Perimeter landscaping/streetscaping would be provided consistent with City requirements. The implemented landscape/streetscape concept would act to enhance perception of the developed Project site, and to screen views of the Project interior from off -site vantages. Landscape and streetscape elements would provide shade and visual interest, define entry/access points, and accentuate site and architectural features. 1.5.5 Walls and Screening The Project would implement screenwalls along the site's easterly, westerly, and southerly boundaries. Perimeter wall designs and wall heights proposed by the Project would be up to 7.5 feet in height, as measured from the midpoint of retaining wall height(s) from lower grade(s), and would exceed the 6-foot maximum height permitted under the L Zone District. The added wall height promotes privacy of perimeter lots and acts to attenuate vehicular -source noise emanating from adjacent streets. The Applicant has requested a minor exception for the increased wall height(s) pursuant to Development Code 17.16.110, Minor Exceptions. 1.5.6 Lighting All Project lighting would be designed and implemented consistent with applicable Lighting Guidelines established by the City, and in a manner that precludes potential adverse effects of light overspill to surrounding properties. Such plans would be submitted for required City review and approval prior to, or concurrent with, application for building permits. 1.5.7 Parking Each residential unit would include a minimum 2-car garage. The Project would provide parking consistent with City standards. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-12 D1—Pg29 n� applied PLAN Z - SKNMS PLAN 1 - 0i PIMA h=f} AN 3 - it 61:41 Figure t.3-7 Architectural Concepts Dt—Pg30 s�o,o�. Franz Raamannm nnuaTtes t �. n:, �� applied; Figure 1.5-3 Landscape Plan Concept D1—Pg31 INFt r.0 17.[C' ■ vlwp rvlvYl>vYw1n,+ a.l.>¢rl IFxAcnit. ]mr w rtvrm� eIYP. ;Y y.. m.. I A,A S M!K!1 Y[!R rMIWMR YMM Vp b A\II M.tlR 4U. ^ bM1Y IM 1!I\i W P IyY'\I R wlM.a aTM1 NTN PAnV T.I4 p. \U,.Yq YI .a0>Nv uta Mew M+ Iwu.: .Alxa•• NXVA-1 LSY IRI :N ELNO.IRRF UN WMI+VIRIIY'x } ♦ ]xl! ry•u niP YA\ +xAT W'V.a III.l3MRLI fllYMnyl �N xiRf\IYPl V1a.Y. 1♦ 1xW Nl11T WYVA ,Nfi 'liI1W if Ys aU Al N{C fIIIM VYI.Y \T \ANt �XNxN M :VF .YAM )Ytvµy .1'u FY tltl IHxyb Y ry• 41A1I0Y5 1e1n 1'i 1U )I fn 1 41 I TFIu .:UN♦ .y _!Y_ 1 W 1 Tmlu nIV riot[c4a voN n Ma Ix YWtn 1Y.lnt �/�/��/�.���]/\��}/���f M1iH } b.W Ri M1YMN I.w• i {h iMl 45W6[' iVld>.UF NAf.Y L•M !144L. Y R. �4i1^ 9Rf1 ATl'I)1oT.i41C1. 1I111. PflAAlA [YMIpV1 V'YMi xYNI).YYI1 Y^II.� 1M(NIYN4HIYLAVtVwllf tl fH IY'tl V AWl1�� 1'm' FMW :Irypl+ ;iLeAMN\Y!°1AY11111wt IYW pN } } N } \rRXi Y MI NfM VM• }TNI E3a Ni I.V Yy Y_iYl !(!. ?11 IUII T.Il Ip V; a.A!II 1p1 n�ti 11111]lM1lM1w nNl I .efiu u.1 PW Ff IMI.AY2V.tvY NA\ A I.r. ♦a- 1 PI.V M_pN4 n{FF(T{lA eWW4N6MY".t C1 MA VI TNT I(RII FY CYY "; Y'nx14 Ia VI NI M1IINn VY l 4 dlliw NAY1�W.a x1x V.M.nRo lM nA engAe4u nYep .um.. ! - Ib +mMl FrY Yn. •n r°ror ,.x \: WALL FENCE LEGEND {IvwnflwawMu.z M•YY ixnAlY\ 'GNN W"ur �� TTAN 5I LIAIPRI(XT N'.+LL NTTN WVTRR(XTtIq.1PtNf alenNlnYYm.A nu:x unRY ICN wr\.i v.v�Y: 61'.V,\SIIIMI'RLIN'I: NALL AIIR•FILfg'NLtk'R RfrnLY1811 R.\Ll. °!°]'!•NinwinnTvto• xwtMwp ' \Iwlt u. MTIIIRM1FR RfxT (FR LMNI IAAYA+<(AY.u! NT+M WTh\IgtFh„i: IWrAw W.YV4pWMaU s�yln� WN M'.,. 6 TIN M(IWN Kr NAIL AT SIDE MI*1RTA I INFS nGn.vmow nsw lWlMprte.usp .wrt[arN.4ltW rN lux t..4N v•• F_t1STi:J(i WVFR RENT RFiNl1LN(i R'AILItiERM(KA A\T. .YYlns:awu.TiY.Y.. I1 N1 vRln. RI.IAR'Milk 'K FFIALNCFr R.W.tlY (7A�FNYiC:FFR YYl:IM1rINIf11N MNV A.HIa.. R64T 111YYfH WYRm Yua LAYw YVW PHi W.IT PYY IIr '44 11RIVAII MONI YARDS (MI Alll'I'I I.;I FP]tYYl MAa4 NCIILV ..; ' - .4 VIxUxLLI VI IIRY+ ,C aryt Il]RF .wlLh. Eax]eYINB,nI. rntu.la a n1AlAVlV.LL.pR+ vp]NOi "•N YYYIA M(e..ln 111lIVFl i'.n P IAIf1A T11u pY.11.\?al•n WIYIn NnIH'V'I.N' .V ® AIROB'fiPlRMI]c'ut FR VtFAS $ll]Ra: Frank RaMaWer AS'eonelas In}. appliedpi, YI F.+R.x;w rimf �✓..ry ..lea ru.Y.. dq.naYa. .. Figure 1.5-4 Landscape Plan Plant Palette D1-Pg32 1.5.8 Infrastructure/Utilities Infrastructure and utilities that would serve the Project site are summarized below. 1.5.8.1 Water Service Water service would be provided to the Project by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD, District). Water service extensions to the Project site would connect to existing facilities located in adjacent public rights -of -way. Final locations and alignments of service lines, and connection to existing services would be provided as required by the City and CVWD. A Will Serve letter for water service from CVWD (IS/MND Appendix H) has been obtained indicating CVWD ability and capacity to meet the Project's water demands. 1.5.8.2 Sanitary Sewer Service Sanitary sewer services would be provided to the Project by the Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA). Sanitary sewer service extensions to the Project site would connect to existing facilities located in adjacent public rights -of -way. Final locations and alignments of service lines, and connection to existing services would be provided as required by the City and IEUA. Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed by City/Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) wastewater conveyance facilities to treatment plants operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). IEUA Regional Water Recycling Plants provide tertiary wastewater treatment, producing effluent suitable for reuse in non -potable applications. A Will Serve letter for sewer service from CVWD (IS/MND Appendix H) has been obtained indicating IEUA ability and capacity to meet the Project's sewer demands. 1.5.8.3 Storm Water Management Systems The Project storm water management system, as approved by the City, would implement drainage improvements and programs acting to control and treat storm water pollutants. In summary, with implementation of the Project storm water management system, storm water runoff from the developed Project site would be directed to on -site bio-treatment areas and released in a controlled manner to existing storm drains. Components of the Project storm water management system would include a City -approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The Project WQMP [Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tentative Tract 20080 (MDS Consulting) March 20171 is presented at IS/MND Appendix F. Through implementation of the SWPPP and WQMP, the Project would comply with requirements of the City's National Pollutant Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-16 D1—Pg33 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and other water quality requirements and storm water management programs specified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). In combination, implementation of the Project storm water management system including the Project SWPPP, WQMP, and compliance with NPDES Permit and RWQCB requirements act to protect City and regional water quality by preventing or minimizing potential storm water pollutant discharges to the watershed. 1.5.8.4 Solid Waste Management It is anticipated that Project -generated solid waste would be conveyed by existing service providers to the Mid -Valley Landfill. The California Integrated Waste Management Act under the Public Resources Code required that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City is currently meeting or exceeding all state -mandated solid waste diversion targets acting to reduce potential impacts at serving landfills. The City remains committed to continuing its existing waste reduction and minimization efforts with the programs that are available through the City. The Project would comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act as implemented by the City. Additionally, consistent with Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling, of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), as adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a minimum of 50 percent of the Project's nonhazardous construction and demolition waste would be recycled or salvaged for reuse. To these ends, a Project Construction Waste Management Plan would be prepared consistent with Section 5.408.1.1 of the CALGreen Code. These measures would collectively reduce Project construction waste and would act to reduce total demands on solid waste management resources. 1.5.8.5 Electricity Electrical service to the Project would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). New lines installed by the Project would be placed underground. Alignment of service lines and connection to existing services would be as required by the City and SCE. Any necessary surface -mounted equipment, such as transformers, meters, service cabinets, and the like, would be screened and would conform to City building setback requirements. To allow for, and facilitate, Project construction activities, provision of temporary SCE electrical services improvements would be required. The scope of such temporary Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-17 DI—Pg34 improvements is consistent with, and reflected within, the total scope of development proposed by the Project. Similarly, impacts resulting from the provision of temporary SCE services would not be substantively different from, or greater than, impacts resulting from development of the Project in total. 1.5.8.6 Natural Gas Natural gas service would be provided by the Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). Existing service lines would be extended to the Project uses. Alignment of service lines and connection to existing services would be as required by the City and SoCalGas. 1.5.8.7 Communications Services Communications services, including wired and wireless telephone and internet services, are available through numerous private providers and would be provided on an as -needed basis. As with electrical service lines, all existing and proposed wires, conductors, conduits, raceways, and similar communications improvements within the Project area would be installed underground. Any necessary surface -mounted equipment, e.g., terminal boxes, transformers, meters, service cabinets, etc., would be screened and would conform to City building setback requirements. 1.5.9 Fire and Police Protection Services Police and fire protection services are currently available to the Project site, and are listed below. • Fire Protection Services: Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. • Police Protection Services: San Bernardino County Sheriff under contract to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1.5.10 Energy Efficiency/Sustainability Energy -saving and sustainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated into all facilities developed pursuant to the Project. Notably, the Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project also incorporates and expresses the following design features and attributes promoting energy efficiency and sustainability. • The Project in total would comply with incumbent Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6); Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-18 D1—Pg35 • To reduce water demands and associated energy use, the Project would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy).Z Project site development would also be required to implement the following: o Landscaping palette emphasizing drought -tolerant plants consistent with provisions of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and/or City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements; o Use of water -efficient irrigation techniques consistent with City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements; o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets, high -efficiency toilets (HETs), and other plumbing fixtures. 1.6 PROJECT OPENING YEAR The proposed Victoria and Hermosa Residential Project would be developed in a manner responsive to market conditions and in concert with availability of necessary infrastructure and services. For the purposes of this analysis, the Project Opening Year is defined as 2018. 1.7 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary goal of the Project is to develop a high quality residential community. Complementary Project Objectives include the following: • Maximize development potential of the underutilized site by implementing a complementary mix of single-family residential products; • Take advantage of available infrastructure; enhance and improve local infrastructure systems to the benefit of the Project and surrounding areas; 2 Reduction of 20 percent indoor water usage is consistent with the current CalGreen Code performance standards for residential and non-residential land uses. Per CalGreen, the reduction shall be based on the maximum allowable water use per plumbing fixture and fittings as required by the California Building Standards Code. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-19 D1—Pg36 • Provide a residential development that expands and diversifies the locally available housing stock; and that responds to the current and projected demand for single-family residential products within the City; • Preserve and protect the existing "Phelps" single-family residence which has been determined to have local historic value. 1.8 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS Discretionary actions, permits and related consultation(s) necessary to approve and implement the Project include, but are not limited to, the following. 1.8.1 Lead Agency Discretionary Actions and Permits • Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Approval of a Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT20080); • Design Review (DRC2017-00129); • Approval of a Variance (average lot size) (DRC2017-00130); • Approval of Minor Exception (wall height) (DRC2017-00131); • Approval of a Landmark Designation (DRC2017-00485); and • All other associated building and engineering permits for construction. 1.8.2 Other Consultation and Permits Based on the current Project design concept, anticipated consultation and permits necessary to realize the proposal would likely include, but are not limited to the following: • Tribal Resources consultation with requesting Tribes as provided for under AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act. • Permitting may be required by/through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-20 D1—Pg37 • Permitting may be required by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for certain equipment or land uses that may be implemented within the Project area. Permitting (i.e., utility connection permits) may be required from utility providers. • Other ministerial permits necessary to realize all on and offsite improvements related to the development of the site. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-21 D1—Pg38 Part I: Environmental Information Form D1-Pg39 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) RANCHO (Please type or print clearly using Ink. Use the lab key to move fromone line to the next line.) CUCAMONGA Planning Department (909)477-2750 The purpose of this.form is to,inforin the City,of the basic components of the proposed protect 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'wll 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. INCOMPLETEAPPLICATIONS WILL NOT REPROCESSED. 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. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131 and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485 Project Title: Hermosa & Victoria Residential Project Name & Address of project owner(s): Hermosa, LLC 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Name & Address of developer orproject sponsor Manning Homes 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Updated 4/11/2013 Page 1 of 10 D1-Pg40 Contact Person & Address: Craig Kozma, Manning Homes, 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Applied Planning, Inc. 11762 De Palma Road, 1-C 310, Corona, CA 92883 Telephone Number:(949) 250-4200 Information indicated by an asterisk (`) is not required of non -construction CUP's.. unless otherwise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project 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 west; views into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site; and representative views of significant .features from thasite. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): 6858 Hermosa Avenue. On the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street, approximately one half mile south of Interstate 210, and approximately four miles westerly of Interstate 15. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 1076-081-01-0000 `6) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 5.43 `6)- Net Site Area. (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed 4.37 dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project. site (attach additional sheet if necessary): None. Updated 411112013 D1—Pg41 Page 2 of 10 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and othergovernmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: 1. Adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2. Approval of a Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT20080); 3. Design Review (DRC2017-00129); 4. Variance for average lot size (DRC2017-00130); 5. Minor exception for wall height (DRC2017-00131); 6. Approval of a Landmark Designation (DRC2017-00485); and 7. All other associated building and engineering permits for construction. 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/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The Project site evidences sandyisilty soils and slopes gradually downward from north to south. The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and is extensively disturbed by human activities. Most recently, the Project site was used as a tree farm, but now sits fallow. Trees remaining within the Project site are not viable specimens. Structures within the Project site include the "Phelps" residence, a detached garage, and a small storage shed The Phelps residence is considered a local Landmark, and will be preserved and relocated to "Lot 1" in the westerly portion of the Project site. Please refer also to the Project Biological Report, Cultural Resource Report, and Arborist Report. Updated 4/11/2013 D1—Pg42 Page 3 of 10 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): Structures within the Project site include the "Phelps" residence, a detached garage, and a small storage she$ The Phelps residence is considered a local Landmark, and will be preserved and relocated to "Lot 1" in the westerly portion of the Project site. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 5, presented at Initial Study Part II. 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: Vehicular -source noise from existing adjacent roadways is the main source of noise affecting the site. Noise levels, as received at the Project site, range from 51.5 to 66.6 dBA CNEL. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 12, presented at Initial Study Part II. 12) Describe the proposed project in 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: As.detailed in the Preface, the Project proposes development of a 20-Lot subdivision with 19 new single-family homes and relocation of one existing residence to proposed "Lot 1." The Project would be constructed in 3 increments, including a model home complex consisting of 2 model homes and a temporary parking lot. Total construction time is estimated at 15 months. For the purposes of this analysis, the Project is assumed to be completed and occupied by 2018 (Project Opening Year). 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 of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Single-family residential development exists to the north, west, and south of the Project site. Hermosa Park is located east of the Project site, across Hermosa Avenue. Please refer to Figure 1.3-1, presented as part of the preceding Preface. Updated 4MI2013 D1—Pg43 Page 4 of 10 14) Willthe proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 1, presented at Initial Study Part II. 15) Indicate the type ofshort-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on -site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? The Project would comply with all noise ordinances/codes as required by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 12, presented at Initial Study Part II. `16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of matureor scenic trees: All existing trees on site will be removed. No scenic trees or otherwise viable trees would be affected. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Items 1 and 4, presented at Initial Study Part II. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: None. 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 (gal/day) 14,100 b. Commercial/Intl: (gal/day/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Peak use (gal/Day) Peak use (gal/min/ac) © Septic Tank ®x 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 A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at (909) 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) 5,400 b. Commercial/Industrial (gal/day/ac) Updated 4/11/2013 D1—Pg44 Page 5 of 10 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: 20 Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Lot sizes range from 7,382 square feet to 11,294 square feet. Average lot size is 7,977 square feet. Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): Not Applicable. 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sate Price(s) ce(s) $ to $ 800,000 Rent(permonth) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 3 Plan Types: Plan 1: 2,515-2,519 square feet; 3 Bedroom, 3 Bath w/Optional Bedroom 4 Plan 2: 3,527 square feet; 5 Bedroom, 4.5 Bath Plan 3: 3,417 square feet; 5 Bedroom, 4.5 Bath 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 3.05 persons per DU 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: 7 a. Elementary., 4 b. Junior High: 5 c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major functions) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: Not Applicable. Updated 4/11/2013 D1—Pg45 Page 6 of 10 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) Indicate hours of operation: 28) Numberofemployees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: *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. Sewer and water service providers have been contacted, "Will -Serve" letters have been received. Fire protection and Flood control services have not yet been contacted. As substantiated in the attached Environmental Checklist Form, the Project would not result in or cause significant impacts affecting water, sewer, fire protection, or Flood control facilities, or related service providers. Please refer also to Environmental Checklist Form Items 9 and 14, presented at Initial Study Part II. Updated 4/11/2013 D1-Pg46 Page 7 of 10 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 PCBs; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides: fuels,oils,solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note undergroundstorage ofanyofthe 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. The Phase I ESA recommended that an ACM and LBP survey be completed on the structures prior to any demolition or destructive renovation activities. Additionally, recommended soil sampling and excavation was conducted as part of the Phase II ESA. Mitigation has been included for ACMs and LBP. The Phase II concluded that no further soil investigation and analysis is warranted. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 8, presented at Initial Study Part 11, 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/ortoxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? It 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. No. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 8, presented at Initial Study Part 11. 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 and correct 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 Rencho Cuca^•^^^^ Date: A (_T Signature: Title: Updated 4/11M13 Page 8 of 10 D1-Pg47 IVi _'T@jCftriI#1.I9VA 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 gal/day/acre 1863 gal/day/acre Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District Engineering & Water Resources Departments, Urban Water Management Plan 2000 Updated 4/11/2013 Page 9 of 10 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 D1-Pg49 Page 10 of 10 Part II: Environmental Checklist Form D1-Pg50 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: SUBTT20080 2. Related Files: Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131, and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. 3. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary): Please refer to IS/MND Preface. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Craig Kozma, Manning Homes, 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 5. General Plan Designation: Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC) 6. Zoning: Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): Please refer to IS/MND Preface. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: Nikki Cavazos City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2750 Ext. 4311 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Craig Kozma, Manning Homes, (949) 250-4200 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): TBD 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 PM10 — Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD — South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP —Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan D1—Pg51 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 2 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017.00131, DRC2017-00485 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" or "Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated," as Indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ) Aesthetics ✓) Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use & Planning } Population & Housing } TransponatioNrrafhc ( ) Agricultural Resources (✓) Cultural Resources (✓) Hazards & Waste Materials () Mineral Resources () Public Services O Tribal Cultural Resources (✓) Air Quality (✓) Geology & Soils () Hydrology & Water Quality (✓) Noise () Recreation O Utilities & Service Systems (✓) Mandatory Findings of DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () 1 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. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. O 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) 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. Date: cL Dale: / Dale:.Z % D1-Pg52 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Proiect DRC2017-00131 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 ess Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Withhan Less No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Inco,onated Impact 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga sits at the southern base of the San Gabriel Mountains. Mountain views are available from most areas in the City and provide a scenic backdrop for the community. Nearby roadways provide unobstructed views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and, from the foothills, of the lower -lying valley to the south. However, the Project site is not located within a designated view corridor as identified at General Plan Figure LU-6. As illustrated at Figure 1.3-1, Existing Land Uses, the Project represents the visually compatible continuation of existing residential land uses, and would not impede views of, or otherwise substantively affect scenic vistas or access to scenic vistas. The General Plan EIR also recognizes other scenic resources, including remaining stands of eucalyptus windrows, scattered vineyards and orchards, and natural vegetation in flood -control channels and utility corridors. None of these resources exist on the Project site, nor would the Project otherwise affect any such resources at off -site locations. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project would have a less -than -significant impact on a scenic vista. b) No Impact. There are no officially designated, or eligible, State Scenic Highways located within the City. As such, the Project would have no effect on scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg53 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 4 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Potentially SgWO ant Less Than No Significant Impact MItIgatlon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Development of the Project site with single-family residential uses is anticipated under and allowed by the City General Plan. The Project would implement contemporary single-family residential designs representing an appropriate and compatible continuation of existing residential uses. Subject to City review and approval, final design concepts for the Project would be required to conform to regulations, guidelines, and standards established under the City Development Code. Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code ensures that the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Based on the preceding discussion, the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings is considered less -than -significant. d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would introduce new sources of lighting, including street lights and security lighting. Subject to City review and approval, all Project lighting would be required to conform to regulations, guidelines, and standards established under the City Development Code. Compliance with applicable provisions of the Development Code ensures that the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Based on the preceding discussion, the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg54 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 5 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: PP g Potentially Sig�l�anl Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant mpael Incorporated Impact 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? 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 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, c) No Impact. The Project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Nor is the Project site zoned for forest lands, timberlands, or timberland production. The Project would have no effect on farmlands, forest lands or timberlands. b) No Impact. No Williamson Act contracts are in place for the subject site. The Project would therefore not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning designations, nor affect any existing Williamson Actcontract(s). d) No Impact. There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Further, there are no areas within the City that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the loss or conversion of forest land to non -forest use, or timberland production. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg55 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wan Less Than Ne Slgmfi am Impact Mitigapon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact e) No Impact. There are no agricultural uses, forestlands or timberlands on the site. The Project does not involve other changes to the environment which could result in the conversion of farm land or forest land to other uses. Furthermore, there are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land. Therefore, there is no potential for conversion of forest land to a non -forest use. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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 () () (✓) ( ) 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: Potential air quality impacts of the Project are evaluated and substantiated in detail in Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017 (Project AQIGHG Study). Analysis, results and conclusions of the Project AQ/GHG Study provide the basis for the following discussions. The Project AQ/GHG Study in its entirety is provided at IS/MND Appendix B. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg56 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than No slgnlf cant Impact Mitigation Signifcant Impact Incorporated Impact a) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is locally responsible for administration and implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Currently, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. 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 SCAQMD AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions; updated emission inventory methodologies for various emissions source categories; and reflects information, plans, and programs presented in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP). Air quality conditions and trends presented in the AQMP assume that regional development will occur in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in its RTP. The AQMP further assumes that development projects within the region will implement appropriate strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions, thereby promoting timely implementation of the AQMP. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are identified at Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), as listed below. Project consistency with, and support of, these criteria is presented subsequently. • Criterion No. 1: The project under consideration will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS/CAAQS air quality violations or cause or contribute to new NAAQS/CAAQS violations; or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg57 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 8 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PolenWly Significant wan Lessffign Than No fiaant Impact MltigAon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact • Criterion No. 2: The project under consideration will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2011 or increments based on the years of Project build -out phase. Criterion No. 1 The CAAQS and NAAQS comprise, and are reflected in, the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The Project LST analysis (presented under item b, below) substantiates that Project construction -source emissions and operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs, and therefore would not violate NAAQS or CAAQS. Further, the Project would implement applicable best available control measures (BACMs), and would comply with applicable SCAQMD rules, acting to further reduce its already less -than - significant air pollutant emissions. Moreover, the Project location proximate to local and regional transportation facilities acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated mobile -source (vehicular) emissions. Additionally, Project incorporation of contemporary energy-efficiency/energy conservation technologies and operational programs (refer to IS/MND Preface, Project Description, Section 1.5.10, Energy Efficiency/Sustainability); and compliance with SCAQMD emissions reductions and control requirements act to reduce stationary -source air emissions. These Project attributes and features are consistent with and support AQMP air pollution reduction strategies and promote timely attainment of AQMP air quality standards. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. Criterion No. 2 Criterion No. 2 addresses consistency (or inconsistency) of a given project with approved local and regional land use plans, and associated potential AQMP implications. That is, AQMP emissions models and emissions control strategies are based in part on land use data provided by local general plan documentation; and complementary regional plans, which reflect and incorporate local general plan information. Projects that propose general plan amendments may increase the intensity of use and/or result in higher traffic volumes, thereby resulting in increased stationary area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg58 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No slgnifieant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact when compared to the AQMP assumptions. However, if a given project is consistent with and does not otherwise exceed the growth projections in the applicable local general plan, then that project would be considered consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP and would not affect the AQMP's regional emissions inventory for the Basin. The Project does not propose or require any change in City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use designations, nor any increase in development intensity beyond that currently anticipated for the subject site. Because the land uses and development intensities proposed by the Project are consistent with the City General Plan, the Project complies with Consistency Criterion No. 2. AQMP Consistency Conclusion The Project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations (please see Table 3-4, presented subsequently). The Project does not propose or require any change in General Plan Land Use designations, nor any increase in development intensity beyond that currently anticipated for the subject site. The Project would not generate operational -source criteria pollutant emissions not already reflected in the current AQMP regional emissions inventory. Based on the preceding, the Project is considered consistent with the AQMP. The potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan is therefore considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would generate construction -source air pollutant emissions and operational -source air pollutant emissions. The incumbent SCAQMD/California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)-approved version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod, v2016.3.1) was utilized to estimate Project -related air pollutant emissions levels. Project emissions levels were then compared to applicable SCAQMD thresholds in order to determine if air quality standards would be exceeded; or if Project emissions would contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. Unless otherwise noted, CaIEEMod default values Rev. 412012 DI—Pg59 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 DRC2017-00131, DRC201 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Potentially Significant wnn Less han No Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact and assumptions were applied throughout. Air pollutant emissions generated by the Project as evaluated in the context of applicable SCAQMD thresholds are summarized below. Regional Impacts Construction -Source Air Pollutant Emissions Project construction would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and painting. Modeled maximum daily Project construction - source air quality emissions are presented at Table 3-1. As shown, maximum daily Project construction -source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds, and are therefore considered less -than -significant. Table 3-1 Maximum Daily Construction -Source Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Year Activity ROG NOx CO sox PM1g PM2.5 2018 Demolition 4.0 43.8 24.1 0.1 2.4 2.0 2018 Site Preparation 4.7 48.3 23.4 0.0 20.8 12.4 2018 Grading 2.9 30.7 17.3 0.0 8.4 4.9 2018 Building Construction 2.8 24.5 18.9 0.0 1.8 1.5 2019 Building Construction 2.5 22.1 18.4 0.0 1.6 1.3 2018 Paving 1.9 17.6 15.5 0.0 1.1 0.9 2018 Architectural Coating 1.7 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 2019 Architectural Coating 1.6 1.9 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Peak Daily Total 4.7 48.3 24.1 0.1 20.8 12.4 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. Operational -Source Air Pollutant Emissions Sources of air pollutant emissions associated with Project operations include architectural coatings, natural gas and electricity consumption, and mobile sources. Rev. 4/2012 D1-Pg60 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with LessSig han No fieam Impact Mitigate, Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Maximum daily Project operational -source air pollutant emissions are summarized at Table 3-2. Applicable SCAQMD regional significance thresholds are also presented. As indicated at Table 3-2, Project maximum daily operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds, and would therefore be less -than -significant. Table 3-2 Maximum Daily Operational -Source Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx CO sox PM10 PM2.1 Total Project Emissions 1.3 2.8 7.4 0.0 1.5 0.5 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No source: rocuseo Air Ltuauty ana Lareennouse vas tmtsstons Analysts for Lract ZOOdO, aty of Hancho Cucamonga (Greve &.Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. Regional Air Quality Impact Summary Project maximum daily construction -source or operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds and would therefore be considered less -than -significant. Localized Impacts Localized Significance Threshold Analysis The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the national and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, the NAAQS/CAAQS establish Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board's Environmental Justice Initiative 1-4. More specifically, to address potential Environmental Justice implications of localized air pollutant impacts, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs indicating whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg61 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No signiecan, Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact localized adverse health effects. LSTs apply to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM,o), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. Use of LSTs by local government is voluntary. Lead agencies may employ LSTs as another indicator of significance in air quality impact analyses. Emissions Considered/Methodology LSTs apply to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM o), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The Project LST analysis incorporates, and is consistent with, protocols and procedures established by the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Methodology) (SCAQMD, June 2003). The SCAQMD Methodology clearly states that `off -site mobile emissions from the Project should NOT be included in the emissions compared to LSTs." Therefore, for purposes of the LST analysis, only "on -site" emissions were considered. Construction -Source Emissions LST Analysis The LST mass rate look -up tables provided by the SCAQMD were employed to determine if Project construction -source or operational -source air pollutant emissions could result in significant localized air quality impacts. If the calculated on -site construction -source or operational -source air pollutant emissions do not exceed the LST mass rate look -up table levels then localized emission impacts would be less -than -significant. The LST Methodology (Methodology) presents mass emission rate thresholds for each Source Receptor Area (SRA); and for projects of 1, 2, and 5 acres, with nearest receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. For intervening project areas and receptor distances, the Methodology employs linear interpolation to determine applicable mass emission rate thresholds. If receptors are within 25 meters of the subject development site, the Methodology employs the 25-meter distance threshold. Rev. 4/2012 D1-Pg62 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 13 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially significant Wth less Than No signifi ant Impact Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact The Project is located in SRA 32. The nearest existing sensitive land uses are the residences north of the Project site, and are about 47 feet (14 meters) from any significant construction area. The SRA 32 mass emission rate thresholds listed in Table 3-3 are based on 3.5 acres/day disturbance and a 25-meter source — receptor distance. Peak daily emissions presented at Table 3-3 represent maximum construction -source emissions, which would occur during Project site preparation activities. Table 3-3 summarizes the Project's maximum potential localized construction - source emissions impacts. Table 3-3 Maximum Construction -Source Localized Emissions - Unmitigated (pounds Der dav) Pollutant CO NO. PM1e PMz.s Peak Daily Total 48.3 24.1 20.8 12.4 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 11.0 7.0 Threshold Exceeded? No No Yes Yes source: rocuseo Air Vuanry ana lneennouse Gas tmisslons Analysis for Iract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. As shown above, Project construction -source PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs. These are potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is proposed to reduce impact significance. AQ-1 During grading and site preparation phases of construction, the work area shall be watered a minimum of two times per day. Table 3-4 presents the localized emissions after the application of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg63 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 14 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With LeasSignificant Than No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incoryoratad Impact Table 3-4 Maximum Construction -Source Localized Emissions - Mitigated (nounds ner dav) Pollutant CO NO. PMto PM2.5 Peak Daily Total 48.3 24.1 10.9 6.9 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 284 2,331 11.0 7.0 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. As shown above, watering of the Project site during construction, as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1, would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions below the localized threshold. Operational -Source Emissions LST Analysis LST analyses appropriately consider only emissions generated by on -site sources. In this regard, the Project operational -source emissions LST analysis evaluates emissions that would be generated by on -site stationary/area-sources and also captures emissions that would be generated by on -site traffic. Table 3-5 presents the Project's maximum potential localized operational -source emissions. Applicable SCAQMD localized significance thresholds are also presented. As indicated, Project operational -source air pollutant emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs and would therefore be less -than - significant. Table 3-5 Maximum Operational -Source Localized Emissions Summary (pounds per dav) Pollutant CO NO PMtg PM2,5 On -site Emissions 2.8 7.8 1.5 0.5 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 3 2 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. Rev. 412012 D1—Pg64 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 15 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PolenGally Significant Wih Less Than No Signlfiwnt Impact Mitigation signdiflcanl Impact Inwrporata Impact c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project area is designated as an extreme non - attainment area for ozone; a serious non -attainment area for PM10; and a non - attainment area for PM2.5. Germane to these regional non -attainment conditions, the Project -specific evaluation of emissions presented in herein substantiates that Project air pollutant emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds. The fact that the Project emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds indicates that the Project impacts in these regards would be less -than -significant on an individual basis, and under SCAQMD significance criteria, would not be cumulatively considerable. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard is less -than -significant. d) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors. As concluded in the above discussion of Localized Air Quality Impacts, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the sensitive receptors nearest the Project site would not be subject to emissions exceeding SCAQMD LSTs. On this basis, the potential for the Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less -than -significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Temporary, short-term odor releases are potentially associated with Project construction activities. Potential odor sources include, but are not limited to: asphalt/paving materials, glues, paint, and other architectural coatings. It is expected that any associated odors would quickly dissipate and would not adversely affect vicinity properties. Residential uses, such as those proposed by the Project, are not typically associated with long-term objectionable odors. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people is less -than - significant. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg65 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 16 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g p°1en0a1'Y StgNlh nt Less Than No Significant Impact Nitigatlen Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Sources: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 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 () () (✓) 0 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: Potential biological resources impacts of the Project are evaluated and substantiated in detail in Biological Resources Evaluation & Analysis, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Tentative Tract 20080, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA (Hamilton Biological) February 3, 2017; Arborist Report, Tract 20080, N. West Corner of Hermosa and Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg66 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 17 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially S19nificant With Le ss Than No significant Impact MIti,U.n significant Impact Incorpomtert Impact Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. (Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496) February 2, 2017; and Memo Re: Tentative Tract 20800, C/O Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street, Alta Loma, Ca. (Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496) March 30, 2017. Analysis, results and conclusions of these studies provide the basis for the following discussions. a) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. To assess potential Project - related impacts to biological resources, a site -specific assessment has been conducted. The following discussions summarize the results of the assessment, which is presented in its entirety as IS/MND Appendix C. Vegetation Communities The Project site contains a fallow Christmas tree farm and associated single- family residence. English walnut (Juglans regia), lemon tree (Citrus x lemon), pomegranate tree (Punica granatum), bouganvillea (Bougainvillea glabra), and various common ornamental species exist in proximity to the residence. The eastern quarter of the site is almost totally cleared, and supports mainly low weeds, including storksbill (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides); and annual grasses, including red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), soft chess (B. mollis), and common wild oats (Avena fatua). The remainder of the site consists of cleared, disturbed land with scattered small, planted non-native conifers (Pinus spp., Juniperus chinensis). These trees exist among a much larger number of old stumps of harvested trees. Many of the standing conifers are dead. In between the trees are the same previously - mentioned weeds and grasses. The site contains one 50-foot tall kurrajong tree (Brachychiton populneus). Christmas tree farms are generally kept clear of competing woody vegetation, and the Project site is typical in this respect. The only native plant species recorded on the site is telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), a weedy species adapted to disturbed conditions. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg67 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 18 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Then Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifcant With Less Than No signifwnt Impact Mitigation Signifcant Impact Inwrpomted Impact Wildlife Communities Sixteen native and one non-native species, all birds, were detected during the field survey. These include such local breeders as Mourning Dove, Anna's and Allen's Hummingbirds, Black Phoebe, Cassin's Kingbird, Common Raven, Bushtit, California Towhee, and House Finch, as well as wintering species that breed elsewhere, such as Ruby -crowned Kinglet and Yellow-rumped Warbler. No amphibians or reptiles were observed during the survey, but some common species could be expected, including the Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas) and Western Fence Lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis). The only mammal detected was Botta Pocket Gopher (diggings observed). Additional common, widespread species may also occur. Sensitive Species Numerous sensitive plant and wildlife species are known to exist within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the vicinity. Many are species associated with native oak woodlands and alluvial fan sage scrub. Such species were not observed during the field survey and are considered very unlikely to occur on this Project site due to the site's long history of extensive disturbance, including clearing of virtually all native vegetation. The site exhibits a lack of natural communities, and is completely surrounded by dense urban development. However, virtually all native bird species may be considered "sensitive" during the breeding season, as the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code both prohibit interference with the nesting activities of native bird species. Summary As presented above, no sensitive plant or wildlife species were detected at the site during the field survey. However, a variety of birds likely nest on -site. The following mitigation measure is necessary to avoid significant impacts to these species. Rev. 4/2012 MRSOW, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 19 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than Na significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact BIO-1 Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300- foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition; the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, above, the Project's potential to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species is considered less -than -significant. b,c) No Impact. No riparian habitat or wetlands exist within the Project site or in the Project vicinity. Any existing vegetation serves as habitat for local common species. Implementation of the Project would not affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Wildlife corridors function to prevent habitat fragmentation that would result in the loss of species that require large contiguous expanses of unbroken habitat and/or occur in low densities. Due to the disturbed nature of the Project site and surrounding roadways and development, the potential for native wildlife species to use the Project site as a migratory corridor Rev.4/2012 ' D1—Pg69 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 20 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentmIly Significant With Less Than No Signlfiant Impact Utlgatlon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact or nursery site is unlikely. The Project's potential to result in direct or indirect impacts on wildlife dispersal or migration corridors is considered less -than - significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.80) recognizes trees as a valuable natural resource that helps define the community's character and are therefore worthy of preservation. The removal or relocation of a Heritage tree on private property requires the review and approval of a Tree Removal Permit before removal or relocation. As defined by the City Municipal Code, "Heritage tree" means any tree, shrub, or plant that meets at least one of the following criteria: • All Eucalyptus windrows; or • All woody plants in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of 20 inches or more. as measured four and a half feet (4.5') from ground level; or • Multi -trunk tree(s) having a total circumference of 30 inches or more, as measured 24 inches from ground level; or • A strand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; or • Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the Planning Director because of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. All on -site trees were surveyed by a certified arborist to determine their eligibility as Heritage Trees. Based on the inspection, on -site trees either do not meet the ordinance's minimum size standards to be considered to be Heritage Trees, or are fruit and/or nut trees which are specifically exempted from consideration as Heritage Trees. The arborist reports are presented as IS/MND Appendix C. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg70 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 21 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant WinThan Lesssignmeam No Impact Significant Impact InMitigation corporated Impact Based on the previous discussion, the Project's potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance is considered less -than -significant. f) No Impact. As illustrated at General Plan Figure RC-1, Open Space and Conservation Plan, the Project site is not located within any identified conservation area. Additionally, the Project site is not located within any conservation areas identified at General Plan Figure RC-4, Sensitive Biological Resources. No other local or area -wide preservation or conservation plans or policies are applicable to the subject site. As such, the Project would not result in impacts involving local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or any other conservation plans or policies. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Biological Resources Evaluation & Analysis, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Tentative Tract 20080, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA (Hamilton Biological) February 3, 2017; Arborist Report, Tract 20080, N. West Corner of Hermosa and Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. (Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496) February 2, 2017; Memo Re: Tentative Tract 20800, C/O Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street, Alta Loma, Ca. (Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496) March 30, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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? Rev. 4/2012 D1'—Pg71 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 22 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially significant With Lesssigma Than No am Impact Mlllgatlon slgnlficanl Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: To assess potential impacts to cultural resources, a Cultural Resources Assessment has been conducted for the Project site (Cultural Resources Assessment, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California [LSA Associates, Inc.] February 2017). The Cultural Resources Assessment is presented as Appendix D. The following discussions summarize the Assessment's findings. a) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The existing on -site single - story home was built in 1892, and is a modest vernacular residence with Victorian elements (see Figure 1.3-2, Existing Site Conditions). The site was planted with groves or vines as early as 1895; the groves remained until sometime after 1966. Two historic -period concrete features were identified and documented in association with the house. These consist of the remnants of a concrete -lined swimming pool and a rock -and -mortar retaining wall along Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue. The majority of the swimming pool has been removed; the remainder is broken and filled with debris. The retaining wall appears to either be the result of two different construction events or the original wall has been remodeled. The wall exhibits distinct differences in cobble material used; one section (along Victoria Street) appears to use irregularly sized cobbles and is most likely early construction; whereas, another section (along Hermosa Avenue) is constructed of uniformly -sized cobbles which is likely the later construction or remodel. The wall itself is temporally ambiguous, and neither feature was documented as a historical resource. The residence retains integrity of location and exterior integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. However, the integrity of the property as a whole has been compromised by changes to the setting, which in turn have diminished the integrity of feeling and association. Changes to the setting include removal of the on -site grove, replacement of surrounding groves with modern development, Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg72 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 23 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant W Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact installation of wrought -iron and chain link perimeter fencing, and a temporally ambiguous stone retaining wall. Although the garage and shed may date to the historic period, neither contributes to the historic character of the property or residence. The residence was evaluated for eligibility under the California Register of Historical Resources, as well as City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark and Points of Historic Interest designations. Based on criteria set forth at Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register, the Cultural Resources Assessment determined that the residence would be considered a City Point of Historic Interest. After City review of the Cultural Resources Assessment, it was determined that the residence would receive a higher level of designation as a local Landmark. As discussed within the IS/MND Preface, Project Description, the on -site residence will be preserved and relocated to Lot 1 within the Project site. The property derives its significance from its association with the citrus industry of the area. However, aside from the residence, most of the features that convey that association have been lost. Therefore, it is important to retain features that make it identifiable as a historical home. The Cultural Resources Assessment identified the following character -defining features that should be preserved: • Footprint of the residence, excluding the rear addition and the concrete storage room; • Stone foundation (house and front porch); • Cross -gabled roof form; • Horizontal wood siding, fish scale wood shingles, and wood window and door trim; • Wood window frames; • Wood and glass front door; and • Chamfered wood porch posts with decorative wood spandrels suspended from the porch ceiling. Rev. 4/2012 DI—Pg73 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 24 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: PP 9 Potedally SVKM.an` Less Than No slmpcactt I Impact Mltigatlon signifcanl Impact Incorporated Impact To assess impacts to the residence, the Project was also evaluated under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (SOIS) for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The SOIS are divided into four categories: preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. The Cultural Resources Assessment evaluated the Project plans, and concluded that the Project would be consistent with the appropriate rehabilitation standards of the SOIS. However, to ensure that the appropriate standards are adhered to throughout relocation and rehabilitation of the historic home, the following mitigation measures are required. CR-1 The removal of historic materials or alteration of features that characterize the residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of materials shall be made in -kind. CR-2 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall be preserved and/or repaired/replaced in -kind. CR-3 Any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced, Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a character - defining feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. CR-4 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. CR-5 The design plans and elevations for the new detached garage associated with the historic -period residence should include a gable roof and siding that is similar in appearance to the house and must be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg74 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 25 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentlally significant with Less Than No Sgnlfiwn Impact Wga00n significant Impact Inwrporaled Impact The above mitigation measures shall ensure compliance with the appropriate SOTS. Projects that meet the SOIS are considered to have less -than -significant impacts to historical resources. As such, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 though CR-5, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered less - than -significant. b,c) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, an archaeological records search was conducted, as well as archival research, and an archaeological field survey. All exposed areas were examined for the presence of cultural resources. No cultural resources were identified during the field survey. Since the site has been used for horticultural purposes for approximately 75 years, the Cultural Resources Assessment determined that the likelihood of discovering subsurface cultural resources is minimal, except in the area surrounding the residence. Residential properties of this age typically used privies or septic pits and buried refuse relatively close to the house. Therefore, the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house. As such, the following mitigation is required. CR-6 Removal/relocation of the residence shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house. CR-7 In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg75 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 26 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Pclanuamt slymuhaai wm Leas rnaa Na slImpact Impact Mitigation SlImpct Impact Inmrparalatl Impact perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes their assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. CR-8 If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CR-6 through CR-8, the Project's potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource or directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site is considered less -than -significant. d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The likelihood of encountering human remains in the course of Project development is minimal. However, as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, should human remains be found, 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. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains were found to be prehistoric, the coroner would coordinate with the California Native American Heritage Commission as required by State law. Based on compliance with these existing regulations, the Project's potential to disturb human remains is considered less -than -significant. Rev. 4/2012 DI—Pg76 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 27 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Si9W ant Than N° Signifiwnl Impact Mitig. ban VI;nlfiwnt Impad Inwrp°ra[e, Impact Sources: Cultural Resources Assessment, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (LSA Associates, Inc.) February 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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 () () (✓) ( ) 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? (j () () (✓) 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: Potential geology and soils impacts of the Project are evaluated and substantiated in detail in: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (Associated Soils Engineering, Inc.) February 8, 2017. Analysis, results and conclusions of the Project Rev. 4I2012 D1—Pg77 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 28 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Wie Than No Significant Impact on SlgnlfiLess cant I mpact Iowma nated Impact Geotechnical Investigation provide the basis for the following discussions. The Geotechnical Investigation in its entirety is provided at IS/MND Appendix E. In summary, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the Project site is acceptable for the proposed development, contingent on compliance with recommendations and performance standards identified within the Report. a, i) Less -Than -Significant Impact. No active or potentially active faults are known to exist at the subject site. In addition, the subject site does not lie within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Geotechnical Investigated concluded that surface rupture at the site is considered very low. The California Building Code requires design, engineering, and construction methods that minimize the effects of earthquake on structures. As part of the City's standard review and approval of development projects, any new development must provide a geotechnical study for review and approval by the City Engineer, and comply with the requirements of the approved geotechnical report, and applicable provisions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Code and California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with these requirements reduces potential strong seismic ground shaking impacts to levels that are less - than -significant. a, ii, iii )Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a region known to be seismically active and strong seismic ground -shaking is anticipated during an earthquake. Faults within the City include the Cucamonga Fault, Red Hill Fault, and the Etiwanda Fault Scarp. Each of these faults could generate an earthquake of a magnitude that could damage the improvements that are developed within the site. Liquefaction and seismically -induced settlement or ground failure are generally associated with strong seismic shaking in areas where groundwater tables are at relatively shallow depths (within 50 feet of the ground surface) and/or when the area is underlain by loose, cohesionless deposits. The Project site is not located within a potential liquefaction area as indicated at General Plan Figure PS-3, Geotechnical Hazards. Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation at a depth Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg78 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 29 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ess Than Issues and SupportingInformation Sources: Potentially Signilh nt Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact of approximately 25 feet. Historic high groundwater within the site vicinity is between 50 and 350 feet below grade. Historic high groundwater in nearby groundwater wells is approximately 154 to 197 feet below grade. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that, at this depth, the site exhibits negligible liquefaction potential. Short of a catastrophic event, design of structures in accordance with the Project Geotechnical Investigation, the California Building Code, and current seismic engineering practices is sufficient to reduce potential effects of ground shaking, including potential liquefaction hazards, at the Project site below the level of significance. Additionally, the Project is required to conform to site- and design - specific geotechnical investigations that would be mandated for each increment of construction. Through established Site Plan, Building Permit, and Certificate of Occupancy requirements, the City will verify that required design and construction measures are incorporated throughout Project development and are functionally implemented in the completed structures and facilities. Accordingly, ,it is anticipated that any site - specific geologic constraints which may be encountered during the course of Project implementation can be mitigated to a less -than -significant level within the context of the findings and recommendations of the required site- and design -specific geotechnical investigations, and existing City/CBC seismic design regulations, standards, and policies. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of seismic groundshaking or seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction is considered less -than - significant. a, iv) No Impact. The site is not located within a landslide hazard area, as presented at General Plan Figure PS-3, Geotechnical Hazards. The Project site and surrounding properties are essentially level and exhibit little or no topographic relief. There is no evidence of recent or historic landslides affecting the Project site or vicinity properties. Based on the preceding, the Project will not expose people or structures Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg79 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 30 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No signif am Impact Mitigaton Signifcant Impact Incorsorated Impad to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides is less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is situated within a designated Soil Erosion Control Area (General Plan EIR Exhibit 4.7-4). The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions from September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities associated with the Project will temporarily expose underlying soils, thereby increasing their susceptibility to erosion until the Project is fully implemented. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated below the level of significance through the Project's mandated compliance with a City -approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and compliance with SCAQMD Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. At Project completion, potential soil erosion impacts in the area will be resolved, as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established, overcovering previously exposed soils. The Project involves construction of conventional residential facilities and supporting site improvements within an essentially level area of the City. The Project does not propose to significantly alter existing topography. Any required cut/fill within the Project area will establish suitable building pads and facilitate efficient site drainage. Based on the preceding, potential impacts associated with erosion or changes in topography are considered less -than -significant. c,d) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the site is appropriate for the proposed development, provided that design and construction occur in compliance with the requirements presented within the Investigation. The Project would comply with requirements of the final City -approved final geotechnical report, and applicable provisions of the City Building Code and CBC, to include design- and site -appropriate means to Rev. 4/2012 SAMM, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 31 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than No Slgoifi cantImpact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact avoid or minimize any expansive soils concerns that may be encountered. The Investigation also noted that actual subsurface conditions could differ from the field observations. As such, the Investigation recommended the following: GEO-1 A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall be on -site during all grading and foundation construction to verify all observations/findings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the potential for the Project to 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; or be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, is less -than - significant. e) No Impact. The Project site will be provided sewer services. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Thus, there is no potential for adverse impacts due to soil limitations relative to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (Associated Soils Engineering, Inc.) February 8, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg81 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 32 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than No s;gn;reant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporahad Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 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? Comments: Potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the Project are evaluated and substantiated in detail in Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017 (Project AQ/GHG Study). Results and conclusions of the Project AQ/GHG Study provide the basis for the following discussions. The Project AQ/GHG Study in its entirety is provided at IS/MND Appendix B. a, b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. In its most recent guidance, the SCAQMD Working Group has proposed a screening -level threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/year) for all land use types. Projects that generate GHG emissions of less than 3,000 MTCO2e/year would not be considered substantive sources of GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, GHG emissions not exceeding the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening -level would be less -than -significant. Project GHG Emissions are summarized at Table 7-1. As indicated, Project GHG emissions would not exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/year and would not be considered a substantive source of GHG emissions. Further, Project GHG emissions would not exceed an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg82 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 33 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially significant wiN Less Than No slgnifl and Impact Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact Table 7-1 Annual Project Emissions (Metric Tons) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2EQ Annual Operational Emissions 408.6 0.3 0.0 417.9 Annualized Construction Emissions 14.6 0.0 0.0 14.6 Total Annual Emissions 432.2 0.3 0.0 432.5 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Threshold Exceeded? NO Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases is less -than - significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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. 4/2012 D1—Pg83 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 34 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potengally Signi h nt Less Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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, () () () (✓) 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 () () (✓) ( ) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: Potential hazards associated with the Project site are evaluated in Focused Air Quality and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Skylark Residential, Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Leighton Consulting) October 5, 2016 and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Skylark Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Leighton and Associates, Inc.) June 19, 2017. Results and conclusions of these studies provide the basis for the following discussions. Please also refer to IS/MND Appendix F. a) Less -Than -Significant Impact. During the normal course of construction activities, there will be limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the Project site. Long-term operations of the Project would involve the use of substances typically associated with individual households, like paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and motor oil. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg84 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 35 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With less Than No Slgnifi am Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Inoorporated Impact 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, as well as a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a less -than -significant level. b) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. To assess on -site hazards, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) has been conducted. The Phase I ESA identified the following potential environmental concerns on the Project site: • Since the site contained horticultural uses for at least 100 years, there is a possibility that residual pesticides and/or herbicides may be present in on - site soils. • Based on the age of the on -site structures, it is possible that Asbestos Containing Materials (AGMs) and/or Lead Based Paint (LBP) may be present. • Due to the natural degradation of potential LBP paint applied to the exterior of the structures, there is a possibility that lead at concentrations exceeding established regulatory levels for residential use may be present in near surface soils surrounding the on -site structures. Based on these findings, the Phase I ESA recommended that an ACM and LBP survey be completed on the structures prior to any demolition or destructive renovation activities. As such the following mitigation is required. HAZ-1 Prior to any relocation, demolition, or destructive renovation activities involving the on -site structures, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP issues are not Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg85 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 36 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially signif.M With Less Than No slgnif ant Impact Mitigation slgNfcant Impact Incorporated Impact applicable to Project, or provide an action plan that will be implemented in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to abate any issues. HAZ-2 Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines. To address the possible presence (and extent of) contaminated soil that may be attributed to the past use of pesticides and/or herbicides, as well as lead in the soil surrounding the on -site structures a Phase II ESA has been conducted. Soil samples were collected from a total of 13 soil borings for analysis, with the following results: • Arsenic was detected in two of the collected soil samples at concentrations indicative of Southern California Background concentrations and do not require further action. • Lead was detected in soil samples at concentrations below the Regional Screening Level (RSL) for residential use. These concentrations and do not require further action. • Seven organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were detected, including 4,4- DDD, 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDT, alpha -chlordane, chlordane, gammachlordane, and dieldrin. With the exception of dieldrin, these concentrations were below the RSLs for residential use. The concentrations of dieldrin in soil samples collected at a depth of 0.5 feet (37 pg/kg) and 2.5 feet (560 pg/kg) bgs, exceeded the RSL for residential use of 34 pg/kg. Based on these results, approximately 7.61 tons of affected soils were removed from the site and properly disposed of. After excavation, confirmation samples were taken to confirm that all residual concentrations are below the RSLs for Rev. 4/2012 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 37 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 L.9. Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pelanually Slgnlficant with Les. Than N. Significant Impact Maigation Sgnificant lm .d Incorporated Impact residential use. The Phase II concluded that further soil investigation and analysis is not warranted. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, in addition to the analysis and excavation conducted as part of the Phase II ESA, the potential for the Project to 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 is considered less -than -significant. c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The school nearest the Project site, Deer Canyon Elementary School, is located approximately one -quarter mile northeasterly of the site. The Project proposes typical residential uses, and does not include elements or aspects that will create or otherwise result in hazardous emissions, and does not propose or require substantive handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Pre -packaged materials such as paint, solvents, glues, fertilizers, used during construction and maintenance are subject to extensive local, State, and federal regulations, and are not considered sources of potentially significant hazardous materials or hazardous emissions. d) No Impact. Based on information contained within the EnviroStor database (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/), maintained by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), the Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e, f) No Impact. The Project site is not located within two (2) miles of any airport. Airports nearest the site include Ontario International Airport and Cable Airport, both located approximately 5 miles from the site. At these distances, the site is located outside of any identified aircraft -related safety zones. As such, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. Rev. 412012 D1—Pg87 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 38 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentlally Signipcant with Less rnan No slgnm.m Impact KIP, on Significant Impact Incorporated Impact g) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose designs or require activities that would interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a developed roadway network which provides emergency access and evacuation routes. Access to this existing roadway network will be provided to the Project site. On- going coordination with the local fire and police departments during construction will ensure that potential interference with emergency response and evacuation efforts are avoided. 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. The potential for the Project to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is therefore considered less -than -significant. h) Less -Than -Significant Impact. As shown at General Plan Figure PS-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the site is not located within a designated fire hazard zone. The Project site is located in a suburban area and no wildlands are located in the vicinity of the Project site. Fire protection services are provided to the City and the Project site by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). Adherence to local fire department regulations during construction and operation of the Project will be required. Based on the availability/proximity of existing fire protection services, the potential for the Project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires is considered less - than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Skylark Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Leighton and Associates, Inc.) October 5, 2016; Phase 1I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Skylark Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Leighton and Associates, Inc.) June 19, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 MM Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 39 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant W" Less Than No slgnlricant Impact MitigaGan slg dfl.m Impact Incorporated Impact 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () (✓) ( ) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 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 () () () (✓) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Comments: Results and conclusions of the Project -specific Hydrology Report [Preliminary Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (MDS Consulting) April 20171 provide the basis for the following discussions. The Hydrology Rev. 4/2012 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 40 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially gLoss �Nant sisignifi Than No am Impact Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact Report, as well the Water Quality Management Plan [Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tentative Tract 20080 (MDS Consulting) March 2017], are presented as IS/MND Appendix G. a,f) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would be developed and operated in compliance with all applicable City and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations and water quality standards. Compliance with applicable existing City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPPs); National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements; and mandated Standard Urban Stormwater Management System (SUSMP) requirements would minimize the potential for the Project to substantively contribute additional polluted runoff during Project construction, or over the operational life of the Project. The Project SWPPP; design, construction, and operation of the Project stormwater management system; and development and implementation of the Project SUSMP would be realized consistent with applicable City and RWQCB requirements. Additionally, the Applicant has prepared a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the amount of pollutants, such as eroded soils, entering the drainage system. BMPs include both structural and non-structural control methods. Structural controls used to manage storm water pollutant levels can 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. A complete list of Project -specific BMPs can be found within the Project WQMP, presented at IS/MND Appendix G. On -site stormwater flows will be directed to underground water quality chambers at each residential lot. The chambers will treat the first flush prior to discharge. A high point with proposed Street A will split flows within the site. Runoff flowing to the east of the high point will be directed to a proposed catch basin located along the cul-de-sac. Flows will then enter a parkway culvert and be directed to Hermosa Avenue where they will enter the regional storm drain system. Runoff Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg90 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 41 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Lass Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Losssignlfi Than No ant Impact Mlggation Significant Impact Incomerated Impact flowing to the west will be directed to Teak Way, and continue to Victoria Street where it will be captured by an existing catch basin before entering the regional storm drain system. The Project would provide connection to existing and proposed drainage systems in the least invasive manner possible. Design, configuration, and locations of proposed drainage system improvements would be reviewed and approved by the City and RWQCB prior to, or concurrent with, application for grading permits. All Project stormwater management system improvements would be constructed by the Project Applicant, or would otherwise be assured (via Project Conditions of Approval or other means established by the Lead Agency) to be in place and operational prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. Compliance with applicable City and RWQCB regulations and water quality standards, as well as NPDES permitting requirements, mandated SUSMP requirements, and Project BMPs would minimize the potential for the Project to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts in this regard are considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would not contribute to groundwater depletion, nor discernibly interfere with groundwater recharge. Water is provided throughout the City by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD, District). Groundwater which may be consumed by the Project and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as a whole, is recharged pursuant to the District's policies and programs. The Project will not affect designated recharge areas. Direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Project. Further, construction proposed by the Project will not involve substructures or other intrusions at depths that would significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Based on the preceding discussions, the Project's potential impacts to groundwater availability, quality, or recharge capabilities, are considered less -than -significant. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg91 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 42 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Petontlally Significant with Less man No 9lgmrcant Impact Mitigation Slgnlflct Impact Incorporated Impact c,d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff through the introduction of new impervious surfaces on the site. However, there are no streams or rivers on or adjacent to the site; therefore, 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. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated below the level of significance through the Project's mandated compliance with a City -approved SWPPP and compliance with SCAQMD Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. Additionally, a Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project's potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site which may result in erosion or flooding is considered less -than -significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project incorporates all necessary drainage and stormwater management systems, and would comply with all stormwater system design, construction, and operational requirements mandated under the City Municipal Code and pursuant to policies and regulations established the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, preliminary hydrology calculations (provided at Appendix G) demonstrate that the existing storm drain system, combined with the proposed on -site system, is adequate to convey 100- year storm water flows from the site. In combination, the Project's stormwater management components, and compliance with regulatory requirements would act to preclude potentially adverse drainage and stormwater runoff impacts. g, h) No Impact. As shown at General Plan Figure PS-5, Flood Hazard Zones, the site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone. As such, no placement of structures in a 100-year flood hazard zone would occur as a result of Project implementation and no impact would occur relative to the placement housing or other structures within a mapped 100-year flood hazard area. i) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to adequately convey floodwaters. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg92 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 43 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ess Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sl9nificant wun Less Than No sl9mneam Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact spreading grounds, concrete -lined channels, and underground storm drains. As previously mentioned, the site is not located within an identified flood hazard area. Additionally, the site is not located within a dam inundation area, as shown at Figure PS-6 of the General Plan. As such, the Project's potential to expose people or structures to significant loss due to flooding is considered less -than - significant. j) No Impact. The Project site is not located near any bodies of water or water storage facility that would be considered susceptible to seiche. Nor is the Project site located proximate to coastal waters, and as such, is not subject to tsunami hazards. No slopes of significance have been identified on or near the Project site, and the Project site has not historically been affected by muciflows. Impacts related to tsunami, seiche, or mudflow hazards will not affect the Project. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Preliminary Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (MDS Consulting) April 2017; Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tentative Tract 20080 (MDS Consulting) March 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. 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, 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project proposes construction of conventional contemporary single-family residential uses. The lone single-family residence that exists within the Project site (the "Phelps" residence) would be relocated to Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg93 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 44 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No signienant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact proposed "Lot 1," in the westerly portion of the Project site, adjacent to Teak Way. No established communities exist within the subject site, nor does the Project propose elements or activities that would disrupt or divide an established community. The potential for the Project to physically divide an established community is therefore less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use designation of the Project site is "Residential — Low" (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC). Zoning designation of the site is "Residential — Low" (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC). The Project proposes development of the 5.43-acre Project site with up to 20 single-family residences. The Project's proposed single-family residential uses and proposed residential density of 3.68 DU/AC are permitted under the Project site's existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Standards for the Low (L) Residential Zone require an average lot size of 8,000 square feet, (Development Code Table 17.36.010-1, Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts). Lot sizes within the Project site would range from 7,382 square feet to 11,294 square feet, with an average lot size of 7,977 square feet. The Applicant has submitted a Variance Request to allow for the Project's average lot size (7,977 square feet) versus the 8,000 square feet average required under the Development Code. The basis for the Variance Request is excerpted below, and the Variance Request in total is presented at IS/MND Appendix A. While the project will be consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the preservation and relocation of the Hermosa Residence will result in a hardship to Manning Homes that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and strict application of the City's Zoning Code Standard related to the average lot area is not possible. The project has been designed to comply with all other zoning requirements including minimum lot area, lot width, depth, frontage, coverage, setbacks, density and parking. However, adherence to the average lot size of 8,000 square feet would prevent Manning Homes from achieving the project goals of preserving the historic house and developing a 19 Rev. 412012 DI—Pg94 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 45 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially sigdficaN wen Less man No signifi am Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact [20] lot subdivision. The proposed Project would provide an average lot area of 7,977 square feet. As detailed above, the subdivision would exceed the City's minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and would be consistent with all Zoning Code development standards except for the average lot area. In addition, the average lot area proposed is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Attachment 2 provides the sizes of the surrounding residential lots. Of the lots shown, 35 of the 46 lots have a smaller lot size compared to the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the vast majority of the surrounding lots and the average lot area of 7,977 square feet will be compatible with the surrounding residential developments (Variance Request, p. 2). Perimeter wall designs and wall heights proposed by the Project would be up to 7.5 feet in height, as measured from the midpoint of retaining wall height(s) from lower grade(s). Proposed wall heights would therefore exceed the 6-foot maximum height permitted under the L Zone District. The increased wall heights proposed by the Project would promote privacy of perimeter lots and act to attenuate vehicular -source noise emanating from adjacent streets. The Applicant has requested a minor exception for the increased wall height(s) pursuant to Development Code 17.16.110, Minor Exceptions. The Project would otherwise comply with all applicable Development Standards for the L Zone District. With approval Variance Request to allow for minimum average lot size of 7,977 square feet, and the Minor Exception to allow for perimeter wall heights of up to 7.5 feet, the potential for the Project to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project is less -than - significant. c) Less -Than -Significant. The Project site is not located in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Nor does the Project propose uses or activities that would substantively affect an off -site conservation plan or off - Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg95 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 46 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pctengally Significant with Less Than No igniflnnt Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact site. Please refer also to the discussion of Biological Resources, Checklist Item 4. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. 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? Comments: a, b) No Impact. The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area or as a valuable mineral resource recovery site (General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1). Nor does the Project propose or require uses or activities that would affect off -site mineral resources. The Project will have no impact on the availability of known mineral resources. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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? Rev. 4/2012 DI—Pg96 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria &.Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 47 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant Than No SLess ignifi ant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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: Results and conclusions of the Project -specific Noise Analysis [Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 20080 City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (Landrum & Brown) February 17, 20171 provide the basis for the following discussions. The Project Noise Analysis is presented as IS/MND Appendix H. a) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Overview The Project proposes conventional single-family residential development within an urban context. Residential uses proposed by the Project are not considered substantive noise sources in either a temporary or long-term context. Construction of the Project would generate temporary and intermittent noise that could adversely affect nearby noise -sensitive receptors. Mitigation is proposed that would reduce construction -source noise to levels that would be less -than - significant. Traffic generated by the Project would not substantively affect area noise levels. While not a CEQA topic for the Project considered here, the Project land uses could be affected by vehicular -source noise emanating from adjacent Rev. 4/2012 DI—Pg97 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 48 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Pa1en°oily SgWlh nt Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Slc Impact Inwrpomtetl Imp Impact Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street.' Recommended Project Conditions of Approval would ensure that the Project complies with applicable exterior and interior noise standards. Potential Noise Exposure of Project Land Uses The Project site would be affected by vehicular -source noise emanating from adjacent Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street. There are no other known or anticipated off -site noise sources that would substantively affect the Project. The Project Noise Analysis indicates that the Project first floor exterior areas along Hermosa Avenue would be exposed to design noise levels of approximately 66.6 dBA CNEL; and that Project first floor exterior areas along Victoria Street would be exposed to design noise levels of approximately 51.1 dBA CNEL (Project Noise Analysis, p. 5). The City General Plan at Figure PS-8 indicates that single-family residential uses such as those proposed by the Project are Conditionally Acceptable within exterior noise environments of up to 65 dBA CNEL. As a Conditionally Acceptable single-family land use, new construction or development within the Project site should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and required noise abatement features are included in the design.2 ' Within the context of the discussions presented here, it is noted that the City General Plan establishes standards and policies addressing environmental noise impacts that could affect the Project. CEQA however only requires an analysis of and mitigation of Project noise impacts on the environment, and of Project effects that could exacerbate existing conditions, thereby resulting in potentially significant environmental impacts. x The State of California's noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise -sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or more. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. Contemporary construction practices typically yield +/- 20 dBA exterior— interior noise attenuation. In a 65 dBA CNEL noise environment, a conventional structure would evidence interior noise levels of approximately 45 dBA. Similar requirements and performance standards are reflected in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Rev. 412012 15111111131 .�.. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 49 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wth Less man No Sigmrcam Impact Mitigation Significant Impact lacmpmated Impact Within the context of the above performance standards and requirements, the City has of Rancho Cucamonga has established 60 dBA CNEL as the maximum acceptable exterior noise condition for single-family residential uses (General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-28). The Project Noise Analysis concludes that with implementation of the design elements listed below, that exterior noise levels at the Project site would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL, and interior noise levels of the Project dwelling units would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. • Construct a 6-foot high noise attenuation barrier (relative to adjacent pad elevations) along the Project's westerly, Hermosa Avenue frontage, adjacent to Lots 9 — 12. The noise attenuation barrier may consist of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, 5/8-inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Location and orientation of this barrier is indicated at Figure 12-1. • Provide adequate ventilation for a windows -closed condition (e.g., a mechanical ventilation system) per the Uniform Building Code for those homes constructed on Lots 9 — 12. Air conditioning units may qualify as adequate ventilation provided they conform to ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code. Required noise attenuation and ventilation systems would be implemented through the Project Conditions of Approval. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg99 + I I ! ! I I I ! I ! I ! ! I JONQUIL DRIVE (PRIVATE) � A STREET"A" ViCCORIA AVENUE Barrier Location (relative to pad elevation) r" e4 appliedplanning HIC BARRIER MUST BE LOCATED AT TOP OF SLOPE Figure 12-1 Noise Barrier Location and Orientation D1-Pg100 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 51 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially significant With Less Thangnific No S.tentiam Impact Mitigation significant Impact Incorpor.ad Impact Effects of Project -source Noise on Off -site Land Uses Project noise sources that could affect off -site land uses would include temporary construction -source noise and long-term operational -source noise generated by typical residential activities. Potential impacts of these noise sources on off -site land uses are evaluated below. Project Construction -Source Noise Project construction -source noise would result in temporary, intermittent, and potentially adverse conditions at proximate offsite receivers. Project construction - source noise would result from on -site construction activities, such as site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and site finishes, and architectural coating. Noise levels at off -site receptors would be greatest during initial site preparation activities (grading, excavation) when heavy equipment may operate near the Project boundaries. As discussed in the City General Plan 'EIR, a "typical construction project that is as close as 50 feet from residential land uses, the worst -case unmitigated peak construction noise levels would be as high 95 dBA. The average noise levels are typically 5 to 15 dB lower than the peak noise levels, so average noise levels (Leq) at the nearest residences would be in the range of 85 dBA (Leq). These [unmitigated] noise levels would be in excess of that which is permitted by the Noise Ordinance" (General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-17). Supplementing the General Plan's basic conclusion that maximum average received construction -source noise levels at 50 feet would be in the range of 85 dBA (Leq), recent empirical data indicates that maximum received construction - source noise levels at 50 feet would more likely approximate 79.6 dBA (Leq). Please refer to Table 12-1. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg101 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 52 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially sig�ant Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Table 12-1 Construction Eauioment Eloise Reference Levels Noise Source Reference Distance from Source (Feet) Noise Levels @ Reference Distance (dBA Leq) Reference Noise Levels @ 50 Feet (dBA Leq) Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 30' 63.6 59.2 Dozer Activity 30' 68.6 64.2 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 30' 71.9 67.5 Foundation Trenching 30' 72.6 68.2 Rough Grading Activities 30' 77.9 73.5 Residential Framing 30' 66.7 62.3 Water Truck Pass -By & Backup Alarm 30' 76.3 71.9 Dozer Pass -By 30' 84.0 79.6 Two Scrapers & Water Truck Pass -By 30' 83.4 79.0 Two Scrapers Pass -By 30' 83.7 79.3 Scraper, Water Truck, & Dozer Activity 30' 79.7 75.3 Concrete Mixer Truck Movements 50, 71.2 71.2 Concrete Paver Activities 30' 70.0 65.6 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities 30' 70.3 65.9 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes 50' 71.6 71.6 Concrete Mixer Pour Activities 50' 67.7 67.7 Forklift, Jackhammer, & Metal Truck Bed Loading 50' 67.9 67.9 Source: Field noise measurements conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at various construction sites July - October 2015. The nearest noise -sensitive land uses are located approximately 50 feet from the Project site and include: single-family residential land uses located northerly of the Project site across [private] Jonquil Drive; single-family residential land uses located southerly of the Project site, across Victoria Street; and single-family residential land uses located westerly of the Project site, across Teak Way. Rev. 4/2012 D1-Pg102 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 53 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenflally Significant With Less Than No sigmfieam Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporate Impact Additionally, single-family residential uses and a park are located approximately 75 feet easterly of the Project site, across Hermosa Avenue. The City of Rancho Cucamonga regulates construction -source noise at City Development Code Section 17.66.050 D. 4. As noted therein, the following actions/conditions are exempt from Development Code noise standards: 4. Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: 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 p.m. and 7 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 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA at the when measured at the adjacent property line (Development Code, p. 17.66-4). Unmitigated Project construction -source noise would exceed the above -noted 65 dBA standard at proximate residential receptors. This is considered a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project, and would be a potentially significant impact that could affect off -site receptors. The General Plan EIR concluded that with application implementation of Standard Conditions (SCs) and application of mitigation, potential construction - source noise impacts would be reduced to levels that would be less -than - Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg103 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 54 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact IncmporateE Impact significant (General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-26). The Project land uses and associated construction activities are consistent with those anticipated by the General Plan EIR. The Project would not result in construction -source noise impacts not considered and addressed in the General Plan EIR. The Project would implement City SCs and mitigation measures (presented below) that are consistent with and expand on construction -source noise mitigation presented in the General Plan EIR3. [Basis General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures are bracketed.] City SCs complemented by the mitigation measures presented below would ensure that Project construction -source noise at potentially affected receptors would be reduced to levels that would be less - than -significant. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-1] Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screening/baffles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; a Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; 3 These General Plan EIR mitigation measures have been slightly modified for clarification and Project specificity. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg104 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 55 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifeeat with Less han No Signifcam Impact Mitigation Slgnlflcanl Impact Incorporated Impact • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered). • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; • Modify equipment to reduce source noise levels by intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. NOI-2 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-2] Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. NOI-3 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-3] The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4.12.11 shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. NOI-4 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-4] If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg105 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 56 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant ith Than No SigniOcant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact In. crated Impact Based on the preceding discussions, and with application of City SCs and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4, the potential for Project construction - source noise to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels exceeding City standards is considered less -than -significant. Project Operational/Area-Source Noise Project operational/area-source noise contributors would include on -site traffic and typical residential noise generators (private outdoor activities, yard maintenance, etc.). Reference noise levels collected for other similar projects indicate that on -site noise stationary/area noise sources would generate noise levels that would not exceed 45 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Maximum allowable residential noise levels are identified at Development Code Section 17.66.050, F. Residential Noise Standards, excerpted below: Rev. 4/2012 F. Residential Noise Standards. 1. Table 17.66.050-1 (Residential Noise Limits) includes the maximum noise limits in residential zones. These are the noise limits when measured at the adjacent residential property line (exterior) or within a neighboring home (interior). Table 17.66.050-1 Residential Noise Limits Location of Measurement Maximum Allowable 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Exterior 60 dBA 65dBA Interior 45 dBA 50dBA Additional: (A) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured within any other fully enclosed (windows and doors shut) residential dwelling unit to exceed the interior noise standard in the manner described herein [in the Development Code]. D1—Pg106 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 57 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifcanl With Less Than No SigMfcanl Impact Miligafon Slgnificanl Impact Incorporated Impact (B) If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, each of the noise limits above shall be reduced 5 dBA for noise consisting of impulse or simple tone noise. Project stationary/area-source noise received at the nearest residential land uses would approximate 45 dBA and would not exceed the City's applicable residential noise exterior noise standards (60 dBA: 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., 65dBA: 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). Project stationary/area-source noise would therefore not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of City standards. Potential impacts in these regards are therefore considered less -than - significant. Vehicular -Source Noise Project -generated vehicular noise impacts were assessed by determining the Project's incremental contribution to ambient roadway noise levels. All other factors being equal, the logarithmic nature of the dB scale means that a doubling of the traffic volumes results in a 3.0 dBA increase in noise levels, regardless of the absolute number of vehicles. Similarly, a 20 — 30 percent increase in traffic volumes results in a 1.0 dB increase in noise levels, regardless of the absolute number of vehicles. Relative increases in noise levels resulting from increases in traffic volumes are summarized at Table 12-2. Table 12-2 Relative Increases in Noise Level from Increased Traffic Volumes Increase in Traffic Volume (Percent) *Increase in Traffic Noise (dBA, approx.) 10 0.4 20 0.8 30 1.1 40 1.5 50 1.8 60 2.0 70 2.3 Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg107 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 58 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant nt Than No Signlfcant Impact Morro on Significant Impact Inwrporatetl Impact Table 12-2 Relative Increases in Noise Level from Increased Traffic Volumes Increase in Traffic Volume (Percent) *Increase in Traffic Noise (dBA, approx.) 80 2.6 90 2.8 100 3.0 *Note: Increase in traffic noise=109ogm (Relative Traffic Increase); e.g. A 10 percent increase in traffic = 1.1 x existing traffic: resulting increase in traffic noise = 10*loglo 1.1=10*.041=.41dI3A; A 100 percent in traffic = 2.0 x existing traffic: resulting increase in traffic noise = 10*logta 2.0=10*.30 =3.0 dBA. The City General Plan EIR indicates that 60 dBA CNEL is the maximum acceptable exterior 24-hour noise condition for single-family residential uses (General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-28). For the purposes of this analysis, if ambient 24-hour noise conditions are below the City residential exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL, and Project vehicular -source noise would result in a perceptible (3.0 dBA) or greater increase in ambient conditions that would cause an exceedance of the 60 dBA CNEL standard, Project vehicular -source noise impacts would be considered potentially significant. If ambient conditions exceed the City 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard, a nominal (1.0 dBA) Project vehicular -source noise contributions to ambient conditions would be considered potentially significant. Traffic along adjacent Hermosa Avenue would be the dominant source of off -site noise affecting the Project site. The calculated maximum design noise level attributable to traffic along Hermosa Avenue is estimated at 66.6 dBA CNEL, exceeding the City's acceptable 60 dBA CNEL standard. Because the projected ambient condition would exceed the City's acceptable 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard, a Project -related incremental increase in vehicular -source noise of 1.0 dBA or greater would be considered potentially significant. The Noise Analysis indicates that design traffic volumes along Hermosa Avenue would total approximately 15,467 vehicles per day (Average Trips per Day, ADT). Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg108 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 59 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: pp 9 potan6any sign'hant Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact The Project would generate approximately 191 ADT,4 or approximately 1.2 percent of the total projected traffic volumes along Hermosa Avenue. Incremental vehicular -source noise contributions realized from Project traffic would be less than 0.4 dBA (please refer to Table 12-1) and would not exceed the 1.0 dBA threshold condition noted above. Project vehicular -source noise would therefore not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of City standards. Potential impacts in these regards are therefore considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose or require uses or activities that would be considered substantive sources of on -going vibration. Temporary vibration that may result from Project construction activities are exempt from Development Code vibration level standards (Development Code Section 17.66.050 D. 4). For the purposes of this analysis, and to substantiate whether the Project would result in "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels," applicable criteria developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) were employed. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual indicates that received vibration levels of 0.10 PPV (0.071 RMS)5 could be distinctly perceptible.6 For the purposes of this analysis, received vibration levels exceeding 0.10 PPV (0.071 RMS) would be considered potentially significant. Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Typical Project construction equipment would generate 4 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012), Land Use Code 210, Single -Family Detached Housing - 9.52 ADT per dwelling unit (DU). Calculation: 9.52 ADT/ DU x 20 DU = 190.4 [191} ADT. e To assess the human perception of vibration levels in PPV, the PPV values are converted to RMS vibration levels based on the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual conversion factor of 0.71. 6 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans) September 2013, p. 38. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg109 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 60 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Witt, Lesssiymfi Than N. am Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact vibration levels of 0.003 PPV (small bulldozer) to 0.089 PPV (larger bulldozer) as measured at 25 feet. As with received noise levels, received vibration levels attenuate with distance. In general, manmade ground -borne vibrations attenuate rapidly with distance from the source. Heavy construction equipment could temporarily and intermittently operate within 50 feet of the nearest residential land uses (located northerly, southerly, and westerly easterly of the Project site). However, even at 25 feet, the maximum anticipated received vibration level (0.089 PPV) would not exceed the 0.10 PPV threshold condition. At distances approximating 50 feet, these vibration levels would be further reduced. Based on the preceding discussions, there is little (if any) potential for the Project to result in or cause exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. This potential impact is therefore considered less -than -significant. c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Long-term Project noise contributions that would exceed City standards would represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise conditions. As discussed at Checklist Item 12.a, Project area/source noise contributions, and vehicular -source noise contributions would not exceed applicable City standards. The Project does not propose or require other permanent uses or permanent noise sources that would substantively affect ambient noise conditions. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise conditions in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project is considered less - than -significant. d) Less -Than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Temporary or periodic Project noise contributions exceeding City standards would represent a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise conditions. As discussed at Checklist Item 12.a), Project construction -source noise impacts are mitigated to levels that would not exceed City standards and would therefore not Rev. 4/2012 DI—Pgl10 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 61 7-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than N. Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact substantively affect ambient noise conditions. Moreover, Project construction - source noise would be transient and intermittent, and would dissipate entirely at the conclusion of construction activities, with no long-term effect on ambient noise conditions. The Project does not propose or require other temporary uses or temporary noise sources that would substantively affect ambient noise conditions. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise conditions in the Project vicinity above levels exiting without the Project is considered less -than - significant as mitigated. e, f) No Impact. Ontario International Airport, the nearest airport/airfield, is located approximately 5 miles southerly of the Project site. While occasional aircraft overflight is expected, substantive aircraft -related noise would not affect the Project area. Moreover, the Project does not propose activities or uses that would cause or otherwise affect airport -related noise impacts. Based on the preceding there is no potential for the Project to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to airports or airport activities. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; TTM 20080 Noise Analysis (Landrum & Brown) June 14, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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? Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg111 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 62 SUBTT20080, DRC201,7-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially signifcant with Lass Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: a) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Official local and regional population •projections are predicated upon buildout of the City in accordance with the General Plan. Single-family residential development proposed by the Project would directly contribute to growth of the City. Notwithstanding, the Project single-family residential land uses and development intensities are consistent with those anticipated under the City General Plan. The Project would therefore not result in population growth beyond that anticipated under the General Plan. Indirect population growth inducement could result from creation of additional jobs and resulting attraction of new residents. Indirect growth inducement could also result from extension of infrastructure and services to areas not currently served, or substantial capacity/capability upgrades to existing systems and services. Development of the Project site would generate temporary construction jobs. However, the Project does not propose business or commercial uses that would result in substantive permanent new employment opportunities or substantive population growth related to the creation of new jobs. The subject site is currently served by all necessary utilities and services, and creation of entirely new infrastructure systems or development of new services is not required. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to induce substantial population growth in the area is considered less -than -significant. b, c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Except for the existing "Phelps" single-family residence and associated ancillary buildings (garage, storage, etc.), the Project site is vacant. As part of the Project, the existing Phelps residence would be relocated to proposed "Lot 1" in the westerly portion of the Project site. The Project does not otherwise involve or propose the displacement of any on -site or Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg112 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 63 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant. With Less Than No Signir am Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact offsite housing stock. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Fire suppression and emergency response services are provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District (Fire District). The Project would incrementally contribute to area -wide demands for fire suppression and emergency response services. Project development would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing fire resistant designs, fire suppression systems, adequate fire access, fire flows, and number and locations of hydrants. In combination, these preventive design measures act to reduce demands for fire protection services and reduce adverse effects of fires. Further, fees and taxes paid by the Project would provide funds Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg113 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 64 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No slgnificam Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact available for service enhancements commensurate with Project -related, demands for fire protection services. Operations of the Fire District provide an indication of population -based fire protection/emergency response demands. In this regard, the Fire District responded to a total of 15,435 incidents during for the 2016 reporting period.7 The Fire District served an estimated 2016 City population of approximately 175,681 persons.a While not strictly population driven, this would indicate an incident response to population ratio of 0.088, or approximately one incident per 11.4 persons. In this context, the Project at 20 dwelling units and an estimated 3.05 persons per households, would yield a service population of 62 persons, and would account for approximately 5.8 incident responses annually. This translates to approximately 0.04 percent (0.0004) of the 15,435 Fire District responses during the 2016 reporting period. The Project site is currently served by fire protection services, and the nominal (0.04 percent) increase in incident responses generated by the Project would not substantively increase area service demands and would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Implementation of the Project would incrementally increase demands for fire protection services and would contribute cumulatively to demands for fire protection services within the City and region. As means of offsetting any incremental demands for services, the Project would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable City and Fire District requirements. Moreover, the Project is required to comply with agency -specific criteria outlined in the Project Conditions of Approval. The Project would comply with these Conditions of Approval and subsequent Fire District requirements that may be City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Fiscal Year 201.7118 Preliminary Budget, p. 224. e Year 2016 demographic information from: California Department of Finance (DOF). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2017 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Web. June 14, 2017. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demobraphics/Estimates/E-5/. Rev. 412012 D1—Pg114 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 65 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifcant with Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact identified through the City's final site plan and plan check/building permit review processes. Compliance with these requirements further reduces potential demands for, and impacts on, fire department and emergency response services. Funding for any expansion or enhancement of current fire protection services would be provided through the City's general fund, which is maintained through the collection of taxes. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to require new or physically altered fire protection facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts is considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Police protection services for the Project area are provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff under contract to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. For residential facilities such as those proposed by the Project, provision and maintenance of adequate police protection services is realized through a combination of: • Project site and facility designs that incorporate appropriate safety and security elements; and • Adequate law enforcement funding. The City 2017/2018 Preliminary Budget indicates that Sheriff Department staffing serving the City included 137 Safety Personnel for the 2016/2017 Fiscal Year.10 Year 2016 California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated population of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is 176,681 persons.11 This yields an approximate 10 Preliminary Budget p. 219. t � California Department of Finance (DOF). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2017 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Web. June 11, 2017. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demagraphics/Estimates/E-5/. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg115 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 66 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polenlially Signffcant whh Less Than No signir anf Impact Mi1igatlon significant Impact Ih.T.raled Impact ratio of 0.78 Safety Personnel per 1,000 service population. The 20 residential units implemented under the Project would result in an estimated service population of 62 persons, requiring approximately 0.05 additional Safety Personnel to maintain the 2016 service ratio of 0.78 Safety Personnel/1000 service population. The Project site is currently provided police protection services, and the additional 0.05 sworn personnel required to serve the Project would not warrant construction of new facilities. The Project would therefore not require new or physically altered police protection facilities. Introduction of buildings, vehicles, and residents to the Project site would incrementally increase demands for police protection services. To reduce demands on police protection services, the Project site plan and proposed facilities designs would be subject to review and approval by the City Planning Department, City Building Department, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department. City and Sheriff Department review protocols and criteria would ensure incorporation of appropriate safety and security elements throughout the Project including but not limited to: appropriate site plan and building designs, incorporation of security and alarm systems where appropriate, adequate outdoor lighting, and provision of defensible spaces. Additionally, the Project Applicant would remit requisite fees providing funding to expand or enhance current police protection services in accordance with Municipal Code Section 3.64. For the Project's single-family residential uses, the Police Impact Fee would be $182 per dwelling unit.12 This fee is due upon issuance of a building permit or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. The City, in consultation with the Sheriff Department, would ultimately determine the most effective use of fees and other revenues generated by the Project, and how they would be employed for the provision and enhancement of police protection services. 12 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fee Schedule. Web. August 29, 2017. hftps://www. citvofrc. us/civicax/filebank/blobd ioad.asox?Blob I D=29639 Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg116 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 67 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ess Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotenOally Vgnifi.nt with lesssigma Than Na ani Impaci M digatmn Significant Impact Incmparated Impact Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts is considered less -than -significant. c, d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Alta Loma School District (Grades K - 8) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (Grades 9 - 12), collectively Districts, would accommodate additional school -age populations resulting from the Project. Current (2016 - 2017) enrollment of the Alta Loma School District is approximately 5,988 students, current (2016 - 2017) enrollment of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District is approximately 23,894 students.13 Development of the Project's 20 single-family residential units would increase the student population within the Districts, increasing demands on Districts' facilities. Development of similar residential projects, indicates that the Project total student generation across all grade levels would total less than 30 students, or approximately 0.1 percent (0.001) of the Districts' 2016 - 2017 total enrollment. The nominal total increase (less than 30 students across all grade levels) and proportional increase (approximately 0.1 percent of the Districts' student population) in student populations resulting from the Project would not require new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Incremental demands on school facilities attributable to development projects are mitigated through mandated payment of school impact fees. School Facility Fees that would be assessed of the Project are estimated at $1.37/sf (Chaffey Joint Union High School District).14 At present, the Alta Loma School District does not assess residential development impact fees.15 73 California Department of Education, Dataquest. Enrollment Multi -Year Summary by Grade. Web. June 20, 2017. PP tt— IdRcde.ca.gov/dataguesVdataguest,asi) Phone conversation with Chaffey Joint Union High School District Staff, June 20, 2017. is Phone conversation with Alta Loma School District Staff, June 20, 2017. Rev. 4/2012 D1-Pg117 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 68 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 ess Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less man N. s;eme.m Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact The Project Applicant would pay requisite school impact fees. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered school facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts is considered less -than -significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Development of the Project would require established public agency oversight including, but not limited to, plan check and permitting actions by the City Planning Department, City Engineering Services Department, City Building and Safety Services Department, City Public Works Services Department, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. These actions typically fall within the currently assigned responsibilities of these agencies, and are paid for via plan check and inspection fees assessed of the Project. The scale and type of development proposed by the Project (20 single-family residential units on less than 6 acres) within a developed urban environment that is served by all necessary utilities and public services indicates that no new or expanded facilities would be required to accommodate oversight or review of the Project. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered "other" public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Communication with Chaffey Joint Union High School District Staff; Communication with Alta Loma School District Staff; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pgl18 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 69 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g patemiany Sig�icant Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant mpact Incorporated Imp.,t 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, b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project residential uses would result in increased resident populations and associated increased demands for neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Parks and recreation services demands are offset through mandated payment of the City's Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fee; Park Improvement Impact Fee; and Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee. The City would assign fees assessed of the Project to park and recreation improvements consistent with demonstrated demands and pursuant to the City Park/Recreation Improvements Program(s), acting to ensure that increased use of parks and recreational facilities attributable to the Project resident population would not result in substantial physical deterioration facilities. Further, the nominal service population resulting from the Project (62 persons) does not warrant the construction entirely new or substantively expanded parks or recreation facilities. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur; or to include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg119 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 70 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorparaled Impact 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; TTM 20080 Development Concept, June 2017. 16. TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC. 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? () () (✓) ( ) f) 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City has determined that based on the Project's nominal peak hour trip generation (less than 50 peak hour trips), that detailed analysis of the Project's potential traffic impacts is not warranted. Project trip generation is summarized at Table 16-1. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg120 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 71 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No Signlncant Impact Mitigation Signlfioent Impact Incorporated Impact Table 16-1 Proiect Trin Generation Summary ITE Total Peak Land Land Use Total Avg. Daily Hour Trips Total Use Code Metric DU Trips/DU Daily Trips AM PM Single Family Detached Residential 210 DU 20 9.52 16 20 191 Notes: Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012). i DU = Dwelling Units The "50 or more peak hour trips' analytic protocol noted above is consistent with standard industry practice and is employed by agencies throughout southern California including but not limited to: Caltrans, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, and the County of Orange. Unless substantively affected by other environmental or physical factors, development proposals that generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips would not typically result in potentially significant transportation/traffic impacts. The Project would construct all necessary site -adjacent improvements pursuant to City Conditions of Approval acting to reduce any potential localized transportation/traffic impacts. Moreover, any incremental effects of Project traffic on the area transportation system would be offset by the Project's mandated payment of the City Transportation Development fee ($9,382.00/DU-effective March 1, 2017). Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system is considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips and would not contribute substantive traffic to any designated congestion management program (CMP) facilities, nor would Project traffic otherwise demonstrably affect CMP facilities. On this basis, the potential for the Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg121 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 72 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Fn aatiany Signiith With Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Project to conflict with an applicable congestion management program is considered less -than -significant. c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose elements or aspects that would affect air traffic patterns. The nearest airport is Ontario International Airport, approximately 5 miles southerly of the Project site. No other public or private airstrips exist proximate to the Project. The potential for the Project to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, is therefore less -than -significant. d, e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose elements or aspects that would intrinsically increase transportation/traffic hazards or restrict emergency access. In conjunction with the approval of building permits, the City would review all Project designs and plans to assure compliance with applicable emergency access and safety requirements and thereby preclude or resolve any potential emergency access concerns. The potential for the Project to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or result in inadequate emergency access is therefore less -than -significant. f) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose elements or aspects that would inherently conflict with adopted alternative transportation policies. On a long-term basis, the Project may result in increased demand for public transportation as residences are developed and occupied. Serving transit agencies (in this case, Omnitrans) routinely review and adjust their ridership schedules to accommodate public demand. The need for transit - related facilities, including but not limited to bus shelters and bicycle parking, would be coordinated between the City and the Project Applicant, with input from transit providers as applicable, as part of the City's standard development review process. Rev. 412012 D1—Pg122 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 73 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ass Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Slgnircant With Less Than Na sigaikant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incanti. ted Impact Pedestrian walkways would be provided within the Project site and would connect the Project site to adjacent land uses. The Project would facilitate and would not obstruct City goals and policies to provide efficient and safe pedestrian access. Based on the preceding discussions, the potential for the Project to conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation is considered less -than - significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, 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: a) 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 b) 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. Rev. 412012 D1—Pg1'23 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 74 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sign"canl With Less Than No signir ant Impact Mitigaficn Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: a,b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Within the Project site, there are no known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that are 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). Nor is it anticipated that the Project would adversely affect off -site TCRs. Tribal Resources Consultation (Consultation) with requesting Tribes has been initiated as provided for under AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act. Consultation documentation is provided at MND Appendix J. Pursuant to the Consultation process, if potentially significant impacts to TCRs are identified, the City and affected Tribe(s) will mutually agree to measures that would avoid or mitigate these impacts. Alternatively, affected parties acting good faith and after reasonable effort, may conclude that a mutual agreement cannot be reached. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined at Public Resources Code 21074 is considered less -than -significant. Sources: AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act; Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 18. 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? Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg124 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 75 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Lean Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Si;gnifcanl wuh Less Than No Zoiticai6 Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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? 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed by City/Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) wastewater conveyance facilities for treatment by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). IEUA Regional Water Recycling Plants provide tertiary wastewater treatment, producing effluent suitable for reuse in non -potable applications. IEUA Regional Plant 1 (RP-1) and Regional Plant 4 (RP-4) treatment facilities serving the City and the Project site. IEUA descriptions of the RP-1 and RP-4 facilities are presented below: Rev. 4/2012 Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP-1) is located in the City of Ontario near the intersection of State Highway 60 and Archibald Avenue. This facility was originally commissioned in 1948 and has undergone several expansions to increase the design wastewater treatment capacity to the current 44.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and biosolids treatment capacity equivalent to a wastewater flow rate of 60.0 mgd. This facility serves the Cities of Ontario, Rancho D1—Pg125 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 76 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No signl6cant Impact. Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair, Fontana and an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County.16 Located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4 (RP-4) has been in operation and producing recycle water since 1997. RP-4 treats an average flow of 5 million gallons per day and is operated in conjunction with RP-1 to provide recycled water to users. The RP-4 facility is being expanded from its current capacity of 7 MGD to 14 MGD.17 Project -generated wastewater would be typical of residential sources, and would not require treatment beyond that provided by existing and programmed IEUA facilities. Moreover, the Project would be developed and operated in compliance with the City regulations and standards of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Wastewater treatment demands of the Project can be accommodated within the scope of existing/programmed IEUA facilities and would not cause or result in exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board is considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Water service is currently provided to the Project site by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD, District). All CVWD water is treated consistent with State and federal requirements ensuring its safety and potability. Three (3) plants provide water treatment for CVWD service area customers: is Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 'Regional water recycling plant #1." Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Web. 2 Aug. 2016. 17 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 'Regional water recycling plant #4." Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Web. 2 Aug. 2016. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg126 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 77 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information.Sources: PP 9 Potentially Sgpahan1 Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Signifcan[ Impact Incorporated Impact • Arthur H. Bridge Treatment Plant; • Royer Nesbit Treatment Plant; and Lloyd W. Michael Treatment Plant. No additional treatment beyond that currently provided by CVWD is required to specifically meet the Project's water demands. Water service and connection fees paid by the Project and other water customers act to fund area water treatment facilities. Wastewater conveyance facilities are provided by the City and CVWD, with wastewater treatment services by the IEUA. The Project would pay sewer connection and service fees, which act to fund City, CVWD, and IEUA improvement plans, operations, and maintenance. The IEUA, as a regional wastewater treatment provider, would determine when and in what manner treatment facilities will be constructed and/or upgraded to meet increasing demands of area -wide development, including the incremental demands of the Project. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project's potential to 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, is considered less -than -significant. c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Management and conveyance of Project storm water discharges is adequately addressed through connection to existing storm water management systems. As discussed at Checklist Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality all proposed connections to, or modifications of, storm water drainage systems would require review and approval by the City and the SARWQCB. The potential for the Project to require or result in new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could result in adverse environmental effects, is considered less -than -significant. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg127 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 78 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Slgnifcant With Less Than No Sgnificant Impact significant Impact InMitigation corporated ,Impact d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The 2015 Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD, District) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) comprehensively addresses water demand and supply throughout the District's service area, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Development proposed by the Project is consistent with residential development of the area envisioned under the UWMP. As documented within the UWMP, water supplies available to District customers are sufficient to meet all existing demands, and anticipated future demands (including the Project's demands) under normal, single -dry year, and extended drought conditions. Even in the event of water supply shortages or water emergencies, the District has in place water shortage contingency plans which ensure provision of priority water services to all its existing and anticipated customers, including the Project. State law requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for residential projects that propose more than 500 dwelling units. Because the Project proposes the development of up to 20 dwelling units, preparation of a WSA is not required. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to require new or expanded water supply entitlements is considered less -than -significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would generate additional demands for wastewater treatment services. Based on planning factors attached to the City's Environmental Information Form, single-family residential uses are anticipated to generate approximately 270 gallons of wastewater per day/dwelling unit (Environmental Information Form, Estimated Water Use and Sewer Flows for New Development). The Project, at 20 single-family dwelling units, would therefore generate an estimated 5,400 gallons of wastewater per day. This wastewater volume is accounted for and reflected in current and programmed IEUA wastewater treatment facilities planning. That is, IEUA wastewater treatment facilities construction and planning reflects development of Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg128 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 79 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenfiely Significant wm Lessslgnmcant Than No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact the City pursuant to the City General Plan. Because the Project land uses and development intensities are consistent with the General Plan, the Project's incremental wastewater treatment demands are reflected in IEUA current and planned wastewater treatment facilities improvements. Further, the General Plan EIR determined that wastewater treatment demands associated with the buildout of the General Plan would be less -than -significant (General Plan EIR p., 4.17-20). The wastewater increment generated by the Project is reflected in that determination. The potential for the Project to exceed current or anticipated wastewater treatment capacities is therefore considered less -than -significant. Please refer also to the discussion of RP-1 capacities and functions, presented at Checklist Item 18 (a). f) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Mid -Valley Landfill (Landfill) is the anticipated primary destination of Project -generated solid waste that is not otherwise diverted or recycled. The Landfill has a daily maximum throughput of 7,500 tons per day, with a remaining capacity of 67,520,000 cubic yards. Maximum permitted capacity of the Landfill is 101,300,000 cubic yards. The Landfill encompasses a total 498 acres, of which 408 acres are designated for waste disposal. The projected closure date of the Landfill is April 1, 2033.18 Solid waste collection and transport services within the City are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. To establish a potential maximum Project impact scenario, a baseline solid waste generation planning factor of 12.23 lbs./household/day has been utilized in this analysis. In this regard, a range of residential waste generation planning factors and rates are published by CalRecycle.19 1s CalRecycle. ''Solid waste facility listing/details: Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055)" Ca/Recycle. 2017. Web. June 17. 2017. 19 CalRecycle. "Residential developments: Estimated solid waste generation rates." CalRecycle. Web. June 17, 2017 Rev. 412012 D1—Pg129 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 80 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Lees Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sigantni Than No signitionnt Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact The rate of 12.23 lbs./household/day employed here represents the most recent and upper end single-family residential waste generation rate within the range of estimates identified by CalRecycle. At a generation rate of 12.23 lbs./household/day, at full occupancy the 20 dwelling units proposed by the Project would generate approximately 245 pounds (0.12 tons) of solid waste per day. This represents 0.0016 percent (0.000016) of the Mid -Valley Landfill (Landfill) maximum allowable daily throughput of 7,500 tons. On a yearly basis, the Project would generate approximately 112 cubic yards of solid waste,20 or approximately 0.00017 percent (0.0000017) of the Landfill remaining capacity of 67,520,000 yards. Assuming the above waste generation rate (12.23 lbs./household/day), the Project's incremental solid waste management demands would not be substantial in the context of the Landfill's allowed daily throughput, or in relation to the Landfill's available capacity. Moreover, the Project land uses and development intensities are consistent with that anticipated under the City General Plan. The solid waste increment generated by the Project is reflected in the General Plan EIR determination that solid waste management impacts resulting from buildout of the City would be less -than -significant (General Plan EIR, p. 4.17-22). Additionally, consistent with Section 5.408 "Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling" of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), as adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a minimum of 50 percent of the Project's nonhazardous construction and demolition waste would be recycled or salvaged for reuse. To these ends, a Project Construction Waste Management Plan would be prepared consistent with Section 5.408.1.1 of the CALGreen Code. These measures would collectively reduce Project 21 CalRecycle. "Calculations: Construction and demolition and inert debris (CDI)." CalRecycle. Web. June 17, 2017. Weight of household trash is estimated at 800lbs./cubic yard. Rev. 412012 D1—Pg130 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 81 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC201.7-00131, DRC2017-00485 Lass Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wth Less Than No significant Impact Millga6on Significant Impact Incoryomted Impact construction waste and would act to reduce demands on solid waste management resources. Based on the preceding, Project -generated solid waste can be accommodated at. the receiving Mid -Valley Landfill; and there is available throughput capacity to serve the Project and other customers. Solid waste diversion achieved pursuant to existing regulations would further reduce potential Project impacts affecting area landfills. The Project would implement a Construction and Demolition (C&D) program further reducing potential Project solid waste management impacts. On this basis, the potential for Project solid waste to exceed the permitted capacity of receiving landfills is less -than -significant. g) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City has implemented programs to ensure compliance with statewide solid waste source reduction targets of 50 percent or more. The Project would comply with applicable city and state waste diversion and recycling mandates. Moreover, the Project would implement conventional urban residential uses and would not establish uses or activities that would not or could not comply with local, State and federal solid waste management regulations. All solid waste generated by the Project would be collected and disposed of as part of the City's municipal waste stream. In this latter regard, solid waste management services are provided throughout the City including collection and transfer of refuse, greenwaste, and bulky items. Recycling services are also provided. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Cal Recycle; 2015 Cucamonga Valley Water District Urban Water Management Plan; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg131 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 82 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentmlly Significant wuh Lesssfgmncant man N. Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated. Impact 19. 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) Less -Than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Certain biological resources described at Initial Study Checklist Item 4. Biological Resources may be adversely affected by the Project. Additionally, as yet unknown cultural resources may exist within the Project area. This IS/MND incorporates mitigation that reduces potential biological resources impacts and potential cultural resources impacts to levels that would be less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As substantiated herein, with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, the Project would not result in potentially significant and unmitigable impacts, nor would any environmental impacts of the Project be cumulatively considerable. c) Less -Than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As substantiated herein, the Project would not cause or result in potentially significant and unmitigable Rev. 4/2012 D1—Pg132 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 83 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Lens man Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PIXv'lla ly Slgnl414 wn, Loss man en Wigabcn Sry,incant Inpa7 tr4vt trw. aivi ir'oaa environmental effects, and would therefore not result in potentially adverse effects to human beings. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION 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 signifignt environmental effects would occur. Applicant's Signature: Print Name and Title: Rev. 4/2012 Date: 41L81 OR - D1—Pg133 Part III: Mitigation Monitoring Program D1-Pg134 eCityRancho . . MITIGATION MONITORING jA PROGRAM Project File No.: SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131 and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485 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 Director, 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. 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 D1—Pg135 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project 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. 4. 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 bythe project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. 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 knowwhether 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 Director prior to the issuance of building permits. D1—Pg136 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (Initial Studv Part III) Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing of Method of Date Verified/ Sanctions for Non. Monitorin Verification Verification Initials Compliance Aesthetics No mitigation is necessary. Agricultural Resources - - - :• - _ No mitigation is necessary. Air, Quality .. _.. . . AQ-1 During grading and site preparation phases I BO C During A 4 of construction, the work area shall be watered a grading and minimum of two times per day. site preparation. Biological Resources' BIO-1 Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If PD B/C Survey to be A/D 2/4 possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be completed scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is prior to the outside the general avian nesting season. This first grading would ensure that no active nests would be permit, disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If Biological vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting resources season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly monitoring surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the during site presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist preparation. (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained bytheApplicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. 1f any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final' buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. Page 3 D1-Pg137 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria& Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table 111.1 Mitigation Monitorina Proaram (Initial Studv Part IIII Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing of Method of Date Verifiedl Sanctions for Non - Monitoring Verification Verification Initials Compliance Cultural/Tribal Resources _ .:,` "', r '-> ,: ". .:.. CR-1 The removal of historic materials or PD C Throughout A 3/4 alteration of features that characterize the activities that residence shall be avoided. Repairlreplacement of would affect materials shall be made in -kind. the "Phelps" residence. CR-2 Distinctive features, finishes, and PD C Throughout A 3/4 construction techniques or examples of activities that craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall would affect be preservedand/or repaired/replaced in -kind. the "Phelps" residence. CR-3 Any deteriorated historic features shall be PD C Throughout A/D 3/4 repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity activities that of deterioration requires replacement of a would affect character -defining feature, the new feature shall the "Phelps" match the old in design, color, texture, and other residence. visual qualities and, where possible; materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. - CR-4 Chemical or physical treatments, if. PD C Throughout A 3/4 appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest activities that means possible. Treatments that cause damage to would affect historic materials shall not be used. the "Phelps" residence. CR-5 The .design plans and elevations for the PD C Prior to C 2 new detached garage associated with the historic- issuance of period residence should include a gable roof and building siding that is similar in appearance to the house permit(s) for and must be reviewed and approved by City staff the "Phelps" prior to issuance of building permits. residence detached garage. Page 4 D1-Pg138 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table 111.1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (Initial StudyPart III) Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing, of Method of Date Verified/ Sanctions for Non - Monitoring Verification - Verification Initials com liance CR-6 Removal/relocation of the residence .shall PD C Throughout A 3/4 be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since the activities that potential for subsurface cultural deposits is would affect moderately high in the area surrounding the house. the "Phelps" residence and its current buildin site. CR-7 In the event that Native American cultural PD C Throughout A, D 4 resources are discovered,all work in the immediate site - vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall disturbing cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting activities 'Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to perform a site visit when. the archaeologist makes their assessment; so as to provide Tribal input. CR-8 /f significant Native American historical PD C Throughout A, D 4 resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered site- and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified disturbing archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural activities resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Page 5 D1-Pg139 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT2OO80) Table'111.1 Miti ation Monitoring Program Initial Study Part 111 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing of Method of Date Verifietll Sanctions for Non Monitoring Verification - Verification Initials Compliance Compliance Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. Gcoloqv and Solis Z - GEO-1 A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall BO C During A 2/4 be on -site during all grading and foundation construction. construction to verify all observations1findings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. Greenhouse Gas Emissions'"':, No miti anon isoecessar . HatardsandWasfe;Materiale'• ",. ."" -"' -° _• ."-__' '-" --'--- :^, w..• HAZ-1 Prior to any relocation, demolition, or PD B Prior to any D 2 destructive renovation activities involving the on- relocation, site structures, the Applicant shall submit demolition or documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP destructive issues are not applicable to Project, or provide an renovation action plan that will be implemented in accordance activities with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to involving the abate any issues. on -site structures. HAZ-2 Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, BO C During A 4 confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be demolition: or handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in destructive accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency renovation guidelines. activities. Page 6 D1-Pg140 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III-1 Mitigation Monitorino Program (Initial Studv Part IIII Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing of Method of Date Verified/ Sanctions for Non - Monitoring Verification Verification Initials Compliance H y drolog ]and Water Quality, No miti anon is necessar . No mitigation is necessary. Minral.Resourdes I No mitigation is necessary. Noise 1,10I-1 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-1] Prior to PD B Prior to C 2 the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall issuance of condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent the first to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land development uses by requiring applications to submit a permit. Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: • Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screeninglbaflles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors • Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; • Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered). • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; Page 7 D1-Pg141 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table 111.1 Mitigation Monitorina Proaram /Initial Studv Part 1111 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verificationetho Date Verified/ Initials Sanctions for Non Com Ifance • Modify equipment to reduce source no/se levels levels by Intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. The Plan shall demonstrate that received construction -source noise levels would not exceed the City's performance standard of 65 dBA (Leq) at any occupied sensitive receptor land use. N0I-2 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-2] BO C During A 4 Construction or grading noise levels shall not construction. exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D (17.66.050-D), as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. Page 8 D1-Pg142 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III-1 Mitioation Monitorina Proaram (Initial Studv Part Ill) Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing of 'Method of Date Verified/ Sanctions for Non. Monitoring Verification Verification Initials Compliance NOI-3 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4,12-3] The PD B Prior to C 2 Plan required as part of the previous noise issuance of mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12. 1] the first shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to development the same hours specified for construction permit. equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. NOI-4 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4A2-4]. If a BO C During A 2/4 perimeter block wall is required fora project, the construction. wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. Pop ulation and ,Housing - - _ - -, - • _ -- - - - - - No miti anon is ce nessar . P.utilic'Services --.. No miti anon is necessar . Recreation 4 r__... No mitigation is necessary, - Trans -ortationrrraffid No mitigation is necessary. Tribal CulturalResources No mitigation is necessary. -_Utilities and Service .Systems No mi[i anon is necessar . " - Page 9 D1-Pg143 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Kev to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Monitoring Fre ency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD —Community Development Director or designee A —With Each New Development A— Onsite Inspection 1—Withhold Recordation of Final Ma PD — Planning Director or designee B— Prior to Construction B— 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,Submiltal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 4—Slop Work Order PO — Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5—Retain Deposit or Bonds FC— Fire Chief or designee 1 6—Revoke CUP 7 — Citation Page 10 D1-Pg144 RESOLUTION NO. 17-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485, DESIGNATING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 20-LOT SUBDIVISION OF ABOUT 5.43 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) DISTRICT (2.0 TO 4.0 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND VICTORIA STREET; APN: 1076-081-01. A. Recitals. 1. Manning Homes, filed an application for a Landmark as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 8, 2017, the Historic Preservation 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. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Historic Preservation 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. The application applies to approximately 5.43-acres of land, basically a rectangular -shaped configuration, located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on November 8, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts: A. The City Council may designate a property as a historic landmark if it meets one of five criteria and must retain integrity from their period of significance with respect to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these factors. The subject property meets the following criteria: Criteria 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Fact/s: The dwelling is a good example of Folk Victorian and has retained a high degree of exterior integrity considering its age. The ornate details such as fish scale wood shingles and decorative wood spandrels suspended from the porch ceiling are architecturally unique for the time period in which the house was built. The house does possess high artistic values which embodies a type and period D1—Pg145 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02 HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 2 of construction. Similar homes with less artistic detail and value have been deemed Historic Landmarks within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. B. Historic Landmarks must retain integrity from their period of significance with respect to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these factors. A proposed landmark need not retain all such original aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance. Neither the deferred maintenance of a proposed landmark, nor its dilapidated condition shall, on its own, be equated with a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be judged with reference to the particular characteristics that support the eligibility of the property. FaCt/S: According to the Cultural Resources Assessment completed by LSA Associates, Inc., the proposed landmark retains high integrity from their period of significance with respect to setting, location, materials, workmanship, association, design and feeling. It retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the applicant's environmental consultant, Applied Planning, prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was peer reviewed by Placeworks, an independent environmental consultant under contract with the City. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Waste Materials, and Noise 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 compliancewith, the mitigation measures for the project. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that, pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Landmark Designation on the 8th day of November 2017 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 a request for a historic landmark designation for a single- family residence in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01. D1—Pg146 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02 HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 3 Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) During grading and site preparation phases of construction, the work area shall be watered a minimum of two times per day. Biological 1) Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. Cultural Resources 1) The removal of historic materials or alteration of features that characterize the residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of materials shall be made in -kind. 2) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall be preserved and/or repaired/replaced in -kind. 3) Any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired ratherthan replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a character - defining feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 4) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. D1—Pg147 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02 HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 4 5) The design plans and elevations for the new detached garage associated with the historic period residence should include a gable roof and siding that is similar in appearance to the house and must be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 6) Removal/relocation of the residence shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house 7) In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes their assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. 8) If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. Geology and Soils 1) A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall be on -site during all grading and foundation construction to verify all observations/findings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. Hazards and Waste Materials 1) Prior to any relocation, demolition, or destructive renovation activities involving the onsite structures, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP issues are not applicable to Project, or provide an action plan that will be implemented in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to abate any issues. 2) Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines. D1—Pg148 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02 HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 5 Noise 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and howthe noise from this equipmentwould be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: • Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screening/baffles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors; • Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; • Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered); • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; • Modify equipment to reduce source noise levels by intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. The Plan shall demonstrate that received construction -source noise levels would not exceed the City's performance standard of 65 dBA (Leq) at any occupied sensitive receptor land use. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. 3) The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12.1] shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. D1—Pg149 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02 HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 6 4) A perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held on the 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: D1—Pg150 OANCHO ANONGA Project #: Project Name: Conditions of Approval Community Development Department SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filino. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: .Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 7. 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. 8. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 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 the Development Code regulations. Printed:.10/23/2017 N .CltyofRC.us D1—Pg151 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filino. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 12. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 13. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Cade and/or This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 14. 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. 15. 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. 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. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 19. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us D1—Pg152 Page 2 of 13 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance r�_s l�trr��>�s•�, i�,�c��•�.�urr�•�a��I]7A'fC•)'1.1�1:7Ja•1►rx•�!� Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. 1. Hermosa Avenue frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Secondary" standards as required and including: A. Protect or repair curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Remove existing drive approach that fronts Hermosa at the northerly portion of the site. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northwest corner of Victoria Street at Hermosa Avenue. 2. Victoria Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City " Collector' standards as required and including: A. Construct curb & gutter at 22 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide three (3) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast corner of Victoria Street at Teak Way. 3. Teak Way frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Dedicate right of way from centerline to property line that equals 30 feet and construct curb & gutter at 18 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide two (2) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 4. 'A' Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Provide five (5) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 2. An in -lieu fee as contribution to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities (telecom and electrical, except for 66 kV electrical or larger) on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of permits. The fee amount shall be one-half the City adopted amount times the length of the overhead utilities from the centerline of Victoria to the south northerly utility pole. 3. The poles on the west side of Hermosa frontage shall be undergrounded per resolution 87-96 Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CltyofRC.us Page 3 of 13 D1-Pg153 Project #: Project Name: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 4. 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. 5. The following fees, per the Engineering Fee Schedule, will be assessed on the building permit: Drainage Transportation Library Animal Center Police Park 6. All easements for landscaping around the perimeter shall be HOA maintained. 7. Minimum ADA access around for. If the minimum spacing interfering areas. Standard Conditions of Approval all poles that will not be removed along Hermosa shall be accounted around poles is not met, the existing wall shall be moved out of the v .CityofRC.us Page 4 of 13 Pdnled: 10/23/2017 D1—Pg154 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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 latest ADA 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. Printed: 10123/2017 www.CiryofRC.us Page 5 of 13 D1—Pg155 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 10.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. 11. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 12. 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. 13. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. The City right-of-way shall stars at the back of sidewalk along Hermosa and Victoria. The portion of existing excess right-of-way along Hermosa and Victoria shall be vacated. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 13 D1—Pg156 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 14. Dedication shall be made of the street centerline): 39 total feet on Hermosa 28 total feet on Victoria 30 total feet on Teak Way 30 feet on A Street (60 total) *Reduced parkway sections HOA maintained areas. following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets (measured from on Hermosa and Victoria are to accommodate existing walls and new 15. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 16. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 17. 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. 18. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side -walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Notes: Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 19. 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: 10/23/2017 w .CityofRc.us D1—Pg157 Page 7 of 13 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 23. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls. 28. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The new structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for new structures. www.cityofRc.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page a of 13 D1—Pg158 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 H E RM OSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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". 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 9. 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. �.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 9 of'13 D1—Pg159 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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". 13. 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". 14. 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. 15. 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 shallbe evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan document. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 13 D1—Pg160 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT; Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21.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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. w .CityofRC.us Printed: 10123/2017 D1—Pg161 Page 11 of 13 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 25. 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; ill 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. 26. 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. 27. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page'I2 of 13 D1—Pg162 Project #: Project Name: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 31. 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). 32. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 33. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R's and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. w .CityofRC.us Page 13 of 13 Panted: 10/23/2017 D1—Pg163 AFF REPORT DATE: November 8, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner CO-1 INITIATED BY: Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20080 — MANNING HOMES —A review of a proposed 20-lot subdivision on a parcel of about 5.43 acres of land in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related files: Design Review DRC2017- 00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131, and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129 — MANNING HOMES — A request for site plan and architectural review of 19 single-family residential homes and relocation of an existing single-family residence in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076- 081-01; Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Variance DRC2017- 00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131, and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2017-00130 — MANNING HOMES — A request to reduce the average lot size from 8,000 square feet to 7,977 square feet in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related files: Tentative Tract Map 20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131, and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017- 00131 — MANNING HOMES — A request to increase the maximum wall height from 6 feet to a maximum of 7'/ feet for a perimeter wall that will be constructed in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017- 00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, and Landmark Designation DRC2017- E1—E4Pg1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 2 00485. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, and adopt the attached Resolutions with Conditions of Approval, approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130 and Minor Exception DRC2017-00131. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is a rectangular -shaped parcel of 5.43 acres with dimensions of about 741 feet (east to west) and about 320 feet (north to south). It is located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street and is currently developed with a single-family residence, a garage, and a small storage building generally located at the center of the site (Exhibit B). The residence was built in 1892 and was originally surrounded by citrus groves. The house has maintained its historical value and qualifies for designation as a historic landmark (related file: Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485). More recently, the property was used to grow Christmas trees but most of them are now dead or in poor health. The project site is at a higher elevation than Hermosa Street, Victoria Street and a small portion of Teak Way which creates a grade difference. There is a 5-foot high river rock retaining wall along Hermosa Avenue which wraps around and continues along a small portion of Victoria Street. The remainder of the frontage along Victoria Street is an earthen slope. The existing land uses on, and the General Plan and Zoning designations of, the subject property and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Mostly Unimproved Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Site with a Single -Family DwellingUnits Per Acre) Low Residential (L) District Residence North Single -Family Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Low Residential (L) District Residences DwellingUnits Per Acre) South Single -Family Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Low Residential (L) District Residences DwellingUnits Per Acre) Single -Family Parks and Open Space (OS) and Low East Residences and Low Residential (2.0-4.0 (L) District Hermosa Park DwellingUnits Per Acre)Residential West Single -Family Low Residential (2.0-4.0 Residential (L) District Residences DwellingUnits Per Acre)Low ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposes to subdivide the project site into 20 single-family residential lots (Exhibit C), relocate the existing single-family home onto Lot 1 and construct 19 single- family homes. Single-family residential development is permitted within the Low Residential (L) District and are required to be developed in accordance with the development standards described in Table 17.36.010-1 of the Development Code. The minimum lot area required is 7,200 square feet and the smallest lot proposed is 7,382 square feet. The minimum lot E1—E4Pg2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 3 width required is 65 feet and the minimum lot depth required is 100 feet. The applicant is proposing lots with a minimum width of 65 and a minimum depth of 102 feet. The proposed homes will be under 30 feet tall, and below the 35-foot maximum building height allowed by the Development Code. The proposed front, sides and rear setbacks of each house comply with the Development Code. The Development Code requires that at least 25 percent of all single family detached units in a single family residential development be single story units. The project includes five one-story homes which meets the minimum standard. The corner houses at the entry of the new street are one story residences in accordance with the Planning Commission policy that corner lots be one story. The project is laid out with a new public street aligned east -to -west, connecting with Teak Way and terminating in a cul-de- sac on the west and east sides, respectively, of the development. (Exhibit C). There are nine different floor plans and four architectural themes (elevations) proposed which is consistent with the Table 17.122.010-1 of the Development Code which, for the number of houses that are proposed, requires four floor plans and three types of elevations. In addition to the different floor plans and elevation styles, there are 10 different color schemes to avoid any repetition on the new street. The buildings have a Spanish, California Ranch or Tuscan architectural design theme. The Spanish theme has a stucco finish, decorative tile work bordering the door entry, gable accents, exposed rafter tails, a tile roof, iron work, shutters and foam window trim. The California Ranch theme has brick veneer, a tile roof, shutters, foam window trim, a stucco finish and exposed rafter tails. The Tuscan theme has stone veneer, shutters, tile roof, foam window trim, exposed rafter tails and a stucco finish. Each theme has a garage door specific to the architectural design. The proposed homes range in size from 3,046 square feet to 3,540 square feet (including the garage). Thirteen of the floor plans also have proposed optional patios (Exhibit E). The nine different floor plans, three architectural themes and ten color schemes create visual interest and create a tract of homes where no two homes will look exactly alike. Each residential lot,in the Low Residential (L) district is allowed a maximum of 40 percent lot coverage. All of the proposed lots are to have no more than 37 percent lot coverage which complies with the Development Code. In addition to the front yard landscaping required for each lot per the Development Code, additional landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs and trees is also proposed along the exterior side of the perimeter walls (discussed further below) along Hermosa Avenue, Victoria Street and Teak Way. This landscaping will reduce the visibility of the height and massing of the perimeter walls (Exhibit F). The project is proposed to have a home owner's association which will maintain this exterior landscaping. In addition to the interior property line walls, there will be set of perimeter walls of varying heights and design. The applicant proposes to maintain the aforementioned river rock wall in -place along Hermosa Avenue and construct another block wall behind it to screen the rear yards of Lots 9 through 12. The applicant is proposing to demolish approximately 20 feet of the river rock wall along Victoria Street and replace it with a combination (screen over retaining) wall 7.5 feet in height. This wall will continue along the entire south side of the project site and 'wrap' around to the west side of Lot 20 adjacent to Teak Way. There will also be a combination wall along the north perimeter of the project site. These perimeter walls will be constructed of decorative slump stone and include columns, finished with river rock and concrete caps, placed at regular intervals. E1—E4 Pg3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 4 Density: The Low Residential General Plan designation of the property requires a density range of between 2.0 and 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The project will meet this density requirement. The applicant is proposing 20 units on 5.43 acres which results in 3.7 units per acre. C. Parking: Per section 17.64 of the Development Code, each single-family residence is required to have two enclosed parking spaces with an interior dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet. All required parking standards will be met. The applicant is providing a two -car garage with the required dimensions for every proposed home. The applicant will also build a new detached garage for the existing historical home. D. Minor Exception DRC2017-00131: The applicant has submitted a Minor Exception to allow an increase in the allowable wall height by 1.5 feet. The maximum wall height in the Low Residential (L) district is 6 feet. The request applies to the perimeter combination wall that will be constructed along the north and south perimeter of the project site at the rear yards of lots 1-10 and lots 12-20. The length of the wall is about 775 feet long on the south perimeter and about 700 feet on the north perimeter. The walls will retain several feet of earth and will provide privacy and screening within the rear yards of the proposed lots. Finding: The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. Fact: The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan designation of the project site is Low Residential and the zoning of the property is Low Residential (L) District. The Minor Exception to allow an increase in the wall height from a maximum of 6 feet to 7.5 feet does not affect the intent of the General Plan and zoning designations of the project site. The height increase will allow the rear yards of the affected lots to be screened and secured as expected for residential properties that they would not otherwise have due to the grade difference existing between the project site and the adjacent streets. Finding: The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding areas. Fact: The Minor Exception is compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The Minor Exception will not result in larger homes, an increase in lot coverage and density, or adjustments to the physical lot area of the proposed subject lots. Furthermore, the applicant :ls proposing tiered shrubs and 24-inch box trees along the walls to partially screen them from view relative to Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue, and the ,_,residences on the opposite sides of those streets (Exhibit F). Lastly, the walls are proposed __:Ao be aesthetically pleasing with colored slump stone block with river rock pilasters that are compatible with the walls in the area. Finding: The proposed exception to the specific development standard is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. Fact: The proposed exception to the specific development standard is necessary to accommodate unique site conditions. There is a grade difference between the project site, El —E4 Pg4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 5 Jonquil Drive and Victoria Street. There is also a grade difference between the project site and a small portion of Teak Way and Hermosa Avenue. Without the retaining walls the grade difference of up to three feet would create a lack of privacy for the rear yards of most of the lots. The proposed 7.5-foot tall walls will be located generally where there are grade differences that warrant retaining walls. Finding: That the granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct walls that will provide adequate property screening/security and usable yard area, and will be similar to other walls that have been approved for construction within the city with similar vertical grade differences. For example, many residential properties abutting the Pacific Electric trail or in the hillside area have been granted Minor Exceptions for maximum wall height due to grade differences. E. Variance DRC2017-00130: The applicant has submitted a Variance to decrease the average lot size for the project. All proposed residential subdivisions must comply with minimum lot size and minimum average lot size requirements as described in the Development Code. The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet; the proposed lots will be between 7,382 and 11,294 square feet. The average required lot size is 8,000 square feet; the proposed average lot size will be 7,977 square feet. The applicant is subdividing 20 lots but is only building on 19 lots. Staff is requiring the applicant to historically landmark the existing house and move it to Lot 1. The Variance for the reduced average lot size will allow the applicant to relocate and preserve the historic residence. Complying with the average lot size of 8,000 square feet will prevent the applicant from preserving a lot for the historic house. Finding: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. Fact: The reduction in the required average lot size is necessary due to the additional required lot needed to preserve the historic house. Without providing an additional lot for the historic house, the applicant would only need 19 lots and each would have enough area to exceed the average lot size requirement. Also, the reduction in the average required lot size is relatively minimal at only 23 square feet (8,000 — 7,977 = 23) per lot. Finding: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. E1—E4 Pg5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SOBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 6 Fact: There is a single-family residence on the property that qualifies for designation as a historic landmark. The applicant has agreed to preserve this home on the property but doing so requires that the applicant create an extra lot for this home within the proposed subdivision and relocate the house to it. Generally, the development of the surrounding subdivisions were not subject to this requirement. Finding: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Fact: The project site is within the Low Residential (L) District which requires that lots have a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and an average lot size of 8,000 square feet. Currently, the lots are proposed to range between 7,382 square feet and 11,294 square feet with an average lot size of 7,977 square feet. Without the average lot size reduction of 23 square feet, the project would need to be redesigned. This would reduce the number of lots and, subsequently, increase the size of the remaining lots to be much larger than the required minimum lot sizes in the subject District and the existing lots in the surrounding area. Not approving the Variance would deprive the applicant of development rights enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Finding: The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Fact: The reduction is minimal and there are circumstances that preclude the project from complying. The proposed Variance for a reduction in the required average lot size within the subdivision, will not constitute a grant of special privilege as existing site conditions, including providing a lot for the existing historical home, limit alternative site designs without reducing the number of lots. Furthermore, the majority of the lots in the vicinity of the project site are between 7,200 square feet and 7,300 square feet in area. As the average lot size of the surrounding properties is less than 8,000 square feet, lots within the proposed subdivision with an average lot size of 7,977 square feet would be consistent with the surrounding area. Finding: The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: The reduction in the required average lot size within the proposed 20-lot subdivision will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, as the reduction will be in keeping with other subdivisions in the surrounding area and with the intent of the Low (L) Residential District. The proposed project is similar to, and compatible with, surrounding residential development, meets all other applicable technical requirements relating to, for example, lot dimensions, setbacks, and lot coverage. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Wimberly, Macias, Granger) reviewed the proposal on September 5, 2017 (Exhibit H). Staff recommended one major correction which was to add windows to the proposed garage doors in order to enhance the residential facades. The applicant agreed to add the windows to the garage doors and the E1—E4 Pg6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 7 Design Review Committee accepted the proposal as submitted subject to the revision that was to be verified by staff. The applicant subsequently revised the garage doors to include windows. Staff, on behalf of the Committee, reviewed the revision and determined that it was completed as requested. G. Technical Review Committee: A Technical Review Committee reviewed the proposal on September 5, 2017. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommended approval. The Committees conditions have been incorporated into the Resolutions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017- 00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131 and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485 where applicable. H. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at Deer Canyon Elementary School. All property owners within 660 feet of the subject property were notified by mail by the applicant. Fifteen people attended the meeting. The applicant presented the project and then followed with answering questions. The neighboring property owners had questions regarding the details of the proposed lots and house product. Some individuals had concerns regarding the south perimeter wall facing Victoria Street and added traffic entering Hermosa Avenue onto Victoria Street to access the proposed subdivision. The applicant explained that several layers of landscaping were proposed between the sidewalk and the decorative block wall which would minimize the appearance of the wall facing Victoria Street. The applicant also explained that the number of vehicle trips generated by a project of this size would not cause a significant increase in traffic on Victoria Street. No individuals objected to the project. I. AB52 Tribal Consultation: In accordance with AB52, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians were contacted on June 20, 2017 to determine their interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians contacted staff for further details and information regarding the project. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requested some language be added to the proposed mitigations. Staff confirmed that the language would be included in the mitigations since the language proposed was already part of staff's standard mitigations to protect cultural resources. No further consultation was requested after the information was provided and no other tribes reached out to staff requesting consultation. J. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the applicant's environmental consultant, Applied Planning, prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was peer reviewed by Placeworks, an independent environmental consultant under contract with the City. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to, for example, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Waste Materials, and Noise, 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 E1—E4 Pg7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 8 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. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed subdivision and construction of single-family homes will facilitate the applicant's sale of properties to individuals which will financially contribute to the value of the area. The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. When 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 developer will also be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. 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. The overall project, during construction may increase construction -related employment and, following its completion, may increase employment at surrounding existing and future businesses that will provide services to the residents of the overall project. Also, a positive fiscal impact for the City will occur through increased sales tax revenue generated by residents' patronage of local businesses. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the application, the design review application is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code which will facilitate the development of the subject property with single-family residences consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Map. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular 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. To date, one phone call was received regarding the project notifications. The individual that called was a property owner within 660 feet of the project site and wanted more information regarding the project details. Staff provided the information and no objection to the project was received. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Vicinity and Aerial Map Exhibit B - Site Utilization Map Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT20080) Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Floor Plans Exhibit F - Elevations Exhibit G - Conceptual Grading Plan and Landscape Plan Exhibit H - Design Review Committee Action Agenda and Comments Exhibit I - Initial Study Parts I, II and III MMP E1—E4 Pg8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131 -MANNING HOMES November 8, 2017 Page 9 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080 Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2017-00129 Draft Resolution of Approval for Minor Exception DRC2017-00130 Draft Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2017-00131 CB:NC/Is E1—E4 Pg9 Vicinity Map SUBTTM 20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017- 001301 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Project Site s N 1 Base Line t3—! I 1 I I ! 1 { J { t 1 -.CJ Base Line Church Arrow - C a 8th u 5 0 c7 sth� 4th �4 - - j Church 1 Foothill i -o Arrow �I w j j6th w *. City Hall EXHIBIT A El-E4 Pg10 � Vr �P1 An Fermin RNARDINC ` / I / --.0 AREM�NTOI -- 1 .. \ \'y r — �CANHO C CAMQNGO.�. rr11_ _ V1/ PM R�trRP3 h(.S/ I\�<4 QNTARIO 4 Rj �.v \ �✓ J1I ., /C!M ERSfDE OSANTA ANA r _ 1 appIied,.imnninu Project Location Tentative Tract Map 20080 El-E4 Pg11 wo.Zo!©| CO ()GO �ol�orr° UA ca �§ 2 LU | ! � � EXHIBIT B e-R e2 El6d b3-0 3 llelHX3 EXI57Nki SMLE ;AM2f IEAK WRY(UGTWCI - D�rAGNED RESIOEIYOAL le S. a •tI q =' 9 ���. � I I, 9. lF r �_�1 _ �4 __ MEPoAosA AVER I 1� 5 s � I It 9 Ij a o 1 I II ai n. II N I II . I; I' z l a , L •D HA N-, I I i I � I I I n y c n I b I : � I _ -- _ - �I I `z I I HJ,RMJ SA PARK ` [fix �gEEe°k�y9'�5&� tl8���i eca �B� s SfF�i � i bl6db3-L3 c 1ji Ef� 83 # w- sp -` a v t FF €III+ �4P _b T 9 n IIII4, pI r I —F O N �E 1 � W -!0 f ` FVOS I -. m a y ~ fil a e y C a R;�ir •I Q �� �y a a�5D a a 9g3c ��E;t fR ej°g Ep .r� ^nT� i ° R ►� g m 6e e E � � y x I 3 e I h�9�rla4a�lela� � I IEIG II sYIs:a IIII E IIII Et..IE _§ "� P Iza q'�I£cPic I3 III I� a� I I Ili li� as SL6db3-13 S� e5 - 2 a p€ 0 e m g en AEG 89 a fi - - - EXISTING, SINGLE FAMILY ".. � TEAK wAr --3 DEI-AGHED RESIDENTIAL Ik m �I x H i 4 I I 1 I I III I n I _ L bo - 1 I I r I 1 N 8 ,F rn' n I I � n I II dV B 14 I V 1 { 1 40 it -- HERMOSA AVENGE _ _ s . PFAMOSA PA}2K Woa x 'n 'e§$i a0 £6s �L-Im�w�Ie�I.�owL.ww. II I I wh § 9> .%n 1aa;Psl�l�i �I I w . i� wi. w "i s _ I,_Ise; is1 ys R1 Isa s a Iw z 1 �iG I�Wm.uwu_u i. w . wLLw���I�i�_�� � o JsaH; 916d b3-13 3 1113IHX: 9 O OFe yl��! 1 O 2. m m x cn Q 3 QO do a —I O :D7 n N I p1 0 d 5 0 (n d4 u L m o � 1 oti ' W N (n I L6d t73—L3 m =5 CD =3 cr) a N BE F- 00 a w d LJ C') cn C:) O > ri .. _. , . -- �- � — � [� , | 2 [ ;; }� 60d t73—L3 m CD cn > + ND :r, + C/3 -C3 w OZbd b3-13 m O d m O c 6 o D 3C W 3.� moN y pT O O D 3 a z z z x 0 m m 0 w T A. c cn C7 lZ6d b3-13 3 a z z z e� s 0 m m ZZ6d b3-13 0- n •i. z 0 EWE ?u i o - y °' b_.� � lisl =.�� •tea _____ _ � T _] .( ,! �( , \ g !\ §CIO + (\ 2< \\® ® cn , § § \ I 2 «%t73 g, .� \| try , $ Ek { 2 {w @ / )cn >\ _ w S. z \ I J : . ( ww �� »/\ L z.2-1 � C , � B ) twol1 R#q(' #'\ id :1 0 P, a_ ems_. mw \� ` \ = l \v/ p. \® MU#,Z#„ �il11HI« })§MelESE --°,tsy M \/,{}«/\. E!2UtII !; miii ;B;r!!•! ! =I I|G|HX3 ��K' - ^kph •� 1, - - Y - >; �§fsi�'.r�, --: ems. -s_id•q"; � �4 '~� Zzea,1-L3 « _ E \ !\ } !2 \ §a E \ \§ — _ / _ | ®\j{m�/y 9 - ¢!!!!#r($ | ( |!\IE!* !((jig i {/ } _ \ E\ !£ r G En)\ @ _ _ , RRgRE@ERE 10 7l717 RV;g 2 `I (\ k� E& 23� , | § \ @E@xEwR@E ; 7!�!!®/E!; )7I\\��`../ _/ R = } \\ % §« F \ \\ - � & o _ _ . E@oowER@E2 ! ~ {\ ! �a - f� ; WIN � t .� 0 LAdHw0 b: , $ ,2 k/ )< 3/ _ 00 | B \ 6uu66wREa2 r��E! §}� 2: � . e& Mg4 NU \ _0 ƒ\ 2 / (\ CX) _ «< 3/ �\ _ _ s , R■RRgRRR@@G§ ! ® !!lrrrr!(■I }�- I;!/¥| \ t` (T3 }\\� \ \\ } \r ` J& Mg, , § B I 72yERxwRR@E@ !! / 6 § & ��r xGMgl | § / SEd©awl z k ! *9 sSEE@ERSe; � _ �d ,o E@ (\ /a /s § %/ §\ s & , mEEEERE@BB !!��!■f®r- � .. / ® |lm;n no ] ( , |< & m , a@ Mg, _ _\ I � M. \/ « E\ )\ �/ J � s | R@@Re@RSSS � - ' \ [ k:( \/ \ 8E6db3-L3 m m O ocn �n 3 Q0 C a C) n 3 s z z a A O 3 m bum W. .55 Roo■ ■mu■ boom boom boom t � Tt ,\� l4c yea •/r Source: LSAAs ociates; Hamilton Biological rel s� appliedi)l,,iwiiIt" Figure 1.3-2 Existing Site Conditions E1-E4 Pg40 Lb6d b3—L3 y `I m wen c�nnZm c z QN�f�y0oy oorC0O� ao��'® I®®N IIN��ts a,. Zb6d b3—La Et76d 173-13 VICTORIA PRELIMINARY LANOSCAPEPLAN 110,L:)I,I, 21? VSC)N6i El -E4 Pg44 N4'Id SNIlNtlld rO"�b�NINNYW avyA mots �tl91d'U r%.;^:om>1.�nN;mnz rew; t�c�l VTdOJ.DIA V VSOME[H 11 c `NJ \ 1^ d� L--T- E1—E4Pg45 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Nikki Cavazos September 5, 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20080 — MANNING HOMES — A review of a proposed 20-lot subdivision on a parcel of about 5.43 acres of land in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081- 01; Related Files: Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131 and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129 — MANNING HOMES — A request for site plan and architectural review of 19 single-family residential homes in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131 and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. Project Overview: The applicant proposes subdividing a 5.43-acre lot into 20 single- family residential lots and constructing 19 single-family homes at a site located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street. Single-family developments are permitted within the Low Residential (L) District and are required to be developed in accordance with the Development Standards (Table 17.36.010-1). Proiect Site and Surrounding Land Uses: The rectangular -shaped project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, a garage and a small storage building located toward the middle of the site. The residence was built in 1892, designed with Folk Victorian elements, and was originally surrounded by citrus groves. The house has maintained its historical value; however, the surrounding historical setting has not due to the removal of the citrus groves, surrounding home tracts, a park, and alterations to the historic period irrigation features. More recently, the lot was used to grow Christmas trees, most of which are dead or in poor health. The majority of the lot is now covered with disturbed dirt. The existing house is proposed to be repaired, historically landmarked and moved to lot number 1. A new garage and accessory structure are proposed to the rear of the house's new location. The General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation for the project site is Low Residential (L) District, which permits the development of up to 4 dwelling units per acre. There are single-family residences within the Low Residential (L) District to the east, west, north and south of the project site. There is also a park with a zoning designation of Open Space (OS) to the east of the project site. Architecture and Site Planning: The project is laid out with a new public street running east to west and the cul-de-sac is proposed on the east side of the development. The vehicle entrance is proposed to be off of Teak Way. Eight properties are proposed on the north side of the development facing south toward the new public street and their yards would back up to Jonquil Drive. Four houses are proposed on the east side of the development with their rear yards backing up to Hermosa Avenue and their front yards EXHIBIT H E1—E4Pg46 DRC COMMENTS SUBTT20080 & DRC2017-00129 — MANNING HOMES September 5, 2017 Page 2 facing the new public street. Eight properties are proposed on the south side of the development facing north toward the new public street. Their rear yards would back up to Victoria Street. The project is made up of 19 new single-family residences. There are three plan types and four elevation styles proposed. In addition to the different plan types and elevation styles, there are 10 different color schemes to avoid repetition on the new street. The buildings have a Spanish, California Ranch or Tuscan architectural design theme. The Spanish theme has a stucco finish, decorative tile work bordering the door entry, gable accents, exposed rafter tails, a tile roof, iron work, shutters and foam window trim. The California Ranch theme has brick veneer, a tile roof, shutters, foam window trim, a stucco finish and exposed rafter tails. The Tuscan theme has stone veneer, shutters, tile roof, foam window trim, exposed rafter tails and a stucco finish. Each theme has a garage door specific to the architectural design. The proposed homes range in size from 2,000 square feet to 3,044 square feet and about half of the lots also have proposed patios. The project provides no more than 37 percent lot coverage on any lot, less than the maximum 40 percent permitted. Landscaping is required on each lot and the minimum landscaping is provided. The buildings are under 30 feet tall, below the 35-foot maximum building height. The proposed front, sides and rear setbacks are all complying with the Development Code requirements. The project is proposing five one-story homes which meets the minimum of 25 percent for a project. The corner houses at the entry of the new street are one story residences in accordance with the Planning Commission policy that corner lots be one story. A 5-foot tall river rock retaining wall currently exists along Hermosa Avenue and a small portion on Victoria Street. The applicant proposes to keep the river rock wall along Hermosa Avenue and construct another decorative block wall behind the existing river rock wall to screen the rear yards of lot nine through twelve. The applicant is proposing to demolish approximately 20 feet of the river rock wall along the north side of Victoria Street (south side of the project). The applicant is proposing a new retaining wall on the north and south sides of the project as well as the side of lot 20 adjacent to Teak Way. The walls will be a maximum of 8 feet in height, as defined in Section 17.48.030 of the Development Code, and will be decorative slump stone with river rock columns with concrete caps. Minor Exception Application: The applicant has submitted a Minor Exception (DRC2017- 00131) to increase the wall height a maximum of two feet in the rear yards of the properties that abut Victoria Street and the properties that have a rear yard that abut Jonquil Drive as well as the corner side yard of lot 20 which is adjacent to Teak Way. The walls will retain several feet of earth and will provide privacy and screening within the rear yards of the proposed lots. The Minor Exception application will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and consideration at the Planning Commission hearing. Variance Analysis: The applicant has submitted a Variance to decrease the average lot size. The average required lot size is 8,000 square feet; however, the applicant is requesting to decrease the average lot size by 23 feet down to 7,977 square feet. The E1-E4Pg47 DRC COMMENTS SUBTT20080 & DRC2017-00129 - MANNING HOMES September 5, 2017 Page 3 Variance application will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and consideration at the Planning Commission hearing. Staff Comments: The proposed project is well -designed and is in keeping with the surrounding residential development. The Spanish, California Ranch and Tuscan architectural themes are well -executed, are carried throughout each elevation and provide roof and wall plane articulation. Major Issues 1. None. Secondary Issues: 1. Add decorative windows on all garage doors. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the proposed project and forward the project to the Planning Commission for final review and action. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for final review subject to the applicant adding windows to all of the garage doors. Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner (Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner - absent) Members Present: Commissioner, Rich Macias; Commissioner, Ray Wimberly, Donald Granger, Senior Planner Additional Staff Present: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner E1-E4 Pg48 SEPTEMBER 5, 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.M. Rich Macias X Candyce Burnett Donald Granger X Alternates: Lou Munoz Rich Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca Additional Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag. Associate Planner and Tan Grahn. Associate 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. C1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20080 - MANNING HOMES -A review of a proposed 20-lot subdivision on a parcel of about 5.43 acres of land in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the Pa?11 P4 Pg49 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 - 7:00 P.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA RAINS Room CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related Files: Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017- 00131 and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129 — MANNING HOMES — A request for site plan and architectural review of 19 single-family residential homes in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01; Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131 and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for final review subject to the applicant adding windows to all of the garage doors. C2. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00378 - MANNING HOMES - A request for site plan and architectural review of 16 single-family residences on 8.32 acres of land within the Low (L) District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936, Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014- 00113. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. The Committee approved as presented and recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for final review. C3. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2017-00391 - FENG XIAO ARCHITECT, INC - A proposed design modification for six (6) previously approved single-family homes in the Low (L) Residential District, located approximately 200 feet south of Wilson Avenue on the east side of Winchester Court; APN: 020118236. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. The Committee reviewed the initial proposal and revised elevation provided by the applicant and recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for final review. D. ADJOURNMENT r�11 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. PaT)L°4 0950 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA RAINS Room CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE I, Jennifer Palacios, Office Specialist 11 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, August 24, 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 II 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. Pa?13 A Pg51 Victoria and Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or, 7411r Prepared for City of Rancho Cucamonga October 2017 n appliedi>I.:;„ �P EXHIBIT I El -E4 Pg52 Table of Contents Section Paqe Preface: Project Description 1.1 Overview................................................................................................. P-1 1.2 Project Location......................................................................................P-1 1.3 Existing Land Uses.................................................................................P-1 1.4 Existing Land Use Designations.............................................................P-5 1.5 Project Elements.....................................................................................P-8 1.6 Project Opening Year..........................................................................P-19 1.7 Project Objectives................................................................................P-19 1.8 Discretionary Approvals and Permits....................................................P-20 Part I: Environmental Information Form Part IL Environmental Checklist Form Part III: Mitigation Monitoring Program Appendix A: Variance Request Appendix B: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Appendix C: Biological Resource Surveys/Arborist Reports Appendix D: Cultural Resource Survey Appendix E: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix F: Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Appendix G: Hydrology Calculations/Water Quality Management Plan Appendix H: Noise Impact Analysis Appendix I: Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Will Serve Letter Appendix J: AB 52 Consultation Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table of Contents Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page i Ell—E4 Pg53 List of Figures and Tables Figure Page 1.2-1 Project Location......................................................................... Preface, Page P-2 1.3-1 Existing Land Uses................................................................... Preface, Page P-3 1.3-2 Existing Site Conditions............................................................ Preface, Page P-4 1.4-1 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations..........................Preface, Page P-6 1.4-2 Existing Zoning Designations.................................................... Preface, Page P-7 1.5-1 Site Plan Concept.................................................................... Preface, Page P-11 1.5-2 Architectural Concepts........................................................... Preface, Page P-13 1.5-3 Landscape Plan...................................................................... Preface, Page P-14 1.5-4 Landscape Plan Palette.......................................................... Preface, Page P-15 12-1 Noise Barrier Location and Orientation ...................................Section III, Page 50 Table Page 1.5-1 Project Construction Schedule .................................................. Preface, Page P-8 1.5-2 Summary of Construction Equipment Use by Activity ............... Preface, Page P-9' 3-1 Construction -Source Air Pollutant Emissions Summary ........... Section II, Page 10 3-2 Operational -Source Air Pollutant Emissions Summary ............ Section II, Page 11 3-3 Construction -Source Localized Emissions (Unmitigated) ......... Section II, Page 13 3-4 Construction -Source Localized Emissions (Mitigated) ............. Section II, Page 14 3-5 Operational -Source Localized Emissions Summary ................. Section Il, Page 14 7-1 Annual Project GHG Emissions Summary ............................... Section ll, Page 33 12-1 Construction Equipment Noise Reference Levels ...................Section II, Page 52 12-2 Relative Increase in Noise Levels from Increased Traffic .......Section II, Page 57 16-1 Project Trip Generation Summary ........................................... Section II, Page 71 III-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program ...................................................Section III, Page 3 Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Page ii E1—E4 Pg54 Preface: Project Description El-E4 Pg55 PREFACE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 OVERVIEW The Project (SUBTT20080) proposes the development of a 20-lot residential subdivision, to include 19 new single-family homes and the relocation of one existing residence within the site. The approximately 5.43-acre Project site is located in the northerly portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Gross residential density proposed by the Project is 3.68 dwelling units/acre (DU/AC). 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION As shown at Figure 1.2-1, the Project site is located at the northwest corner of Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue, approximately one half mile southerly of Interstate 210, and approximately four miles westerly of Interstate 15. 1.3 EXISTING LAND USES Project site and vicinity land uses are depicted at Figure 1.3-1 and are described below. 1.3.1 Project Site Land Use The Project site has an agricultural history, and is extensively disturbed. Most recently, the Project site accommodated a tree farm but now sits fallow. Trees remaining within the Project site are either cut, dead, or in poor health. None of the existing trees are candidates for preservation or relocation.' There is one single-family residence on -site (the "Phelps" residence), a detached garage, and a small storage shed. The Phelps residence is considered a local Landmark, and will be preserved and relocated to proposed Lot 1 in the westerly portion of the Project site. All other surface features will be removed or demolished as part of the Project site preparation activities. Figure 1.3-2 illustrates the existing conditions of the Project site. Please refer to the February 2, 2017 Arborist Report, and March 30, 2017 Arborist Report Update presented atISIMND Appendix C. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page P-1 E1—E4 Pg56 ,.,. �' . 1�.> � 1, �,A3� �e .. �?: ��r s r Ct �r .� .� x !! ;a �—""" s . �^ s � a • 4 r� +� rj {� 51 �• I n' 1 { � r t}, - C { ; r.. � s• a .. C /0. r s r.:, . , �. ..., .. ., t: '. `a,i. nY• q •-Y�t s ��*Y�'�a ;M. y .^ .a 1'°' -t ��, �q tA _gle Farrdly, - ? 0' ti� ark lit u eji Schoo " r Project Site 1 .k - ♦ y v may.:,...' r r - • s .fi ♦ } 1`. viadr'I� $tf (511 � : i i � . • 4 f - i SingW Fa'9"y ''" xr` , r * k• it y •��t" ;ram 't£ T F i � ir' i{'".r =` ^' B1A(t&{ '1'R�, If � rl Ilr—rias +a •* r 4 " �'..•s ' .1. illlg lFi' _, a ,� 1 l rya.R a. •l.a.iirt L YX. 'r X, R( Source- LSAAssociale% Hamilton Biological l `Pon appliedplIIn11i1 Figure 1.3-2 Existing Site Conditions El-E4 Pg59 1.3.2 Vicinity Land Uses Properties to the north, south, and west of the Project site are developed with single-family residences. Easterly of the Project site, across Hermosa Avenue, is Hermosa Park. 1.4 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations are presented at Figures 1.4-1 and 1.4-2, respectively. 1.4.1 Project Site Land Use Designations The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use designation of the Project site is Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC). Zoning designation of the site is Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC). The Project proposes development of the 5.43-acre Project site with up to 20 single-family residences. The Project's proposed single-family residential uses and proposed residential density of 3.68 DU/AC are permitted under the Project site's existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations. The Project does not propose or require any General Plan or Zoning amendments. 1.4.2 Vicinity Land Use Designations The General Plan Land Use designation of properties to the north, south, and west of the Project site is "Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 MAC)". Zoning designation of these properties is "Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 MAC)." Easterly of the Project site, across Hermosa Avenue, is Hermosa Park which is designated as a "Park" General Plan Land Use and Zoned "Open Space' (OS). Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-5 E1—E4 Pg60 Legend _.._.._ ProJeotsfte :oa 12 1)-4001.1 aC; Low l'i(40-60 oL. ac) Medium (6 0 - 14 0 OWacI Schools 10 10 - 0 20 FARj Parks Source City of Rancho Cucannon, Ganaral Plan riii�Poiiili appliedl Hermosa Park Dear Canyon School I,Proieet Site . i Figure 1.4-1 General Plan Land Use Designations El —E4 Pg61 Figure 1.4-1 General Plan Land Use Designations El —E4 Pg61 Legend �••� Proloot 9uc rs� applied;:i ,t;;i _ Hermosa Park Deer Canyon School �'..—..—., H 11 i LPro;_d Site S Figure 1.4-2 Existing Zoning Designations E1—E4 Pg62 1.5 PROJECT ELEMENTS 1.5.1 Construction Information 1.5.1.1 Site Preparation The Phelps residence located within the Project site is considered a local Landmark, and will be preserved and relocated to proposed Lot 1 located within the westerly portion of the Project site. All other surface features will be removed or demolished as part of the Project site preparation activities. The Project site would be grubbed, rough -graded, and fine -graded in preparation of building construction. Any debris generated during site preparation activities would be disposed of and/or recycled consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Existing grades within the Project site would be modified to establish suitable building pads and to facilitate site drainage. 1.5.1.2 Construction Schedule The anticipated Project construction schedule is presented at Table 1.5-1. Table 1.5-1 Proiect Construction Schedule Activity Start Date End Date Number of Days Total Demolition 1/1/2018 1/10/2018 8 Site Preparation 1/11/2018 1/24/2018 10 Grading 1/25/2018 2/14/2018 15 Building Construction 3/1/2018 2/1/2019, 242 Paving 6/16/2018 6/29/2018 10 Architectural Coating 6/1/2018 2/1/2019 176 Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. 1.5.1.3 Construction Equipment Construction equipment use by activity is presented at Table 1.5-2. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment use represents a reasonable approximation of daily construction activities. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-8 E1—E4 Pg63 Table 1.5-2 Summary of Construction Eauinment tJse by Artivitv Activity Equipment Type Equipment Pieces Hours per day Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 Excavators 3 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Grading Excavators 1 8 Graders 1 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 Forklifts 3 8 Generator Sets 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 Welders 1 8 Paving Pavers 2 8 Paving Equipment 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 source: rocuseo Air Wuanry ano ureennouse uas trnlsslonS Analysis for I ract ZOuUU, city of Kancno Cucamonga(Greve !4 Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. 1.5.1.4 Construction Traffic Management Plan Temporary and short-term traffic detours and traffic disruptions could result during Project construction activities. Accordingly, the Project Applicant would be responsible for the preparation and submittal of a construction area traffic management plan (Plan) to be reviewed and approved by the City. Typical elements and information incorporated in the Plan would include but would not be limited to: Name of on -site construction superintendent and contact phone number. Identification of Construction Contract Responsibilities - For example, for excavation and grading activities, describe the approximate depth of excavation, and quantity of soil import/export (if any). Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Project Description Page P-9 E1-E4 Pg64 Identification and Description of Truck Routes -to include the number of trucks and their staging location(s) (if any). Identification and Description of Material Storage Locations (if any). . Location and Description of Construction Trailer (if any). Identification and Description of Traffic Controls - Traffic controls shall be provided per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) if the occupation or closure of any traffic lanes, parking lanes, parkways or any other public right-of-way is required. If the right-of-way occupation requires configurations or controls not identified in the MUTCD, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval. All right-of-way encroachments would require permitting through the City. Identification and Description of Parking -Estimate the number of workers and identify parking areas for their vehicles. Identification and Description of Maintenance Measures - Identify and describe measures taken to ensure that the work site and public right-of-way would be maintained (including dust control). The Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first grading permit. The Plan and its requirements would also be required to be provided to all contractors as one component of building plan/contract document packages. 1.5.2 Site Plan Concept Figure 1.5-1 presents the Project Site Plan Concept. The Project proposes the development of 20 single-family homes (19 new residences and relocation of the existing Phelps residence). Lot sizes within the Project site would range from 7,382 square feet to 11,294 square feet, with an average lot size of 7,977 square feet. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Standards for the Low (L) Residential Zone require an average lot size of 8,000 square feet. (Development Code Table 17.36.010-1, Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts). The Applicant has submitted a Variance Request to allow for the Project's average lot size (7,977 square feet) versus the 8,000 square feet average required under the Development Code. The Variance Request is presented at IS/MND Appendix A. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-10 E1—E4 Pg65 1AP l AL VU, 1c1P'i +n EL 4,CEL '< •.!i'F1I EXISTM SMLE FAIALY . PETP HM FPIGE`ITIAL Source. MOS h%EI� appliedplanning K E.XIS7M wlaLE FAN91-Y• :DcrA.W-D ' RESIDErmv- Figure 1.5-1 Site Plan Concept E1—E4 Pg66 1.5.3 Architectural Design Concepts Preliminary architectural design concepts depict typical contemporary single-family residential uses. The Project proposes three primary single-family residential product types (California Ranch, Spanish, and Tuscan) and variants of each type. Project architectural concepts are illustrated at Figure 1.5-2. Materials and color finishes have been chosen to be compatible with surrounding land uses. All Project architectural designs would be subject to review and approval by the City. 1.5.4 Landscape Concept The Project landscape concept and plant palette is presented at Figures 1.5-3 and 1.5-4. Perimeter landscaping/streetscaping would be provided consistent with City requirements. The implemented landscape/streetscape concept would act to enhance perception of the developed Project site, and to screen views of the Project interior from off -site vantages. Landscape and streetscape elements would provide shade and visual interest, define entry/access points, and accentuate site and architectural features. 1.5.5 Walls and Screening The Project would implement screenwalls along the site's easterly, westerly, and southerly boundaries. Perimeter wall designs and wall heights proposed by the Project would be up to 7.5 feet in height, as measured from the midpoint of retaining wall height(s) from lower grade(s), and would exceed the 6-foot maximum height permitted under the L Zone District. The added wall height promotes privacy of perimeter lots and acts to attenuate vehicular -source noise emanating from adjacent streets. The Applicant has requested a minor exception for the increased wall height(s) pursuant to Development Code 17.16.110, Minor Exceptions. 1.5.6 Lighting All Project lighting would be designed and implemented consistent with applicable Lighting Guidelines established by the City, and in a manner that precludes potential adverse effects of light overspill to surrounding properties. Such plans would be submitted for required City review and approval prior to, or concurrent with, application for building permits. 1.5.7 Parking Each residential unit would include a minimum 2-car garage. The Project would provide parking consistent with City standards. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-12 E1—E4 Pg67 e14PO4 applied Figure 1.5-2 Architectural Concepts El—E4 Pg68 pcWce: Frank Ra�rracM1er Aesatiales 11,A "w 001 appliedi rl ;, u Figure 1.5-3 Landscape Plan Concept E1—E4 Pg69 }R}!�}1❑:. LL{R YR/\\II WRI.: � ■ Ykl lv Ltlb.4.S3D Pal_ W>!fl Wq � 4r,A iBIR MI x. aln-+ I.N 41 M LI 1 .r •auL B�It� wla' rul- nw.. ., DAl_? t F4 YfAI!" W.rcaa w ml Yv" „M- ...na+mlNP V.11+t1.+ Iw.A y snut cIAAP.Ir Rte 1.N36RM^lt 1. 11 N UFMI NIM1IS.tlN A wR 1MY4N 'IT V'IB n fiV1?IA I4M"A IJ Il fII1HI1 SI 1. ,b4t MB N IA fN" Y YI 1 1 x ut 1 }r (n 1. !1'y.ry \ ISLL\ X! N WY ✓d1, M 1 I Wn 'x r.4Bvll B. Vl, r.. f L MOV w.Pi.h Y{n tL, L'L.1iilLM ju lA4[a. a YYL Gl IY t Atf 111'P I I. Y 1lii Ngl'R \IVI fYllll r uvl. + m w reu<wvl.. me Ir W u ANn ,A .11' 1 :. `4�'^" 4'sfl[SY IILVPL I<YJ•1lM1 .. .r•pn... B YY Y+. t•Y Fill .4AI NM1 I IM r 11,-1.r. laM1l&\ Y AN YFI Y M[II +RIW IIAPY. N 1 RIAW V 'IulY+l J4x -..• IIY]Xtt M14 L.fl V.W. M1NT 1 rtl nW Y,N 1 ..N, .,., .. x.nn ..�wmx y. Yyr.+ 1f/ b VBM 4 Y TTVI VIR . I�Yj UVIRfi M IFXd • , B R MIA ,•X,Vra air :. W H111.1 "1'11. I.A. hl .'A.R N .MOltw W 1YLLV iM" ININ. \4 BaF A. lNnII. IWRl IBFM1 P49 \n lG t ..i-. ♦X,.1r F} 'e LI W191AVW1' L;MI '.T tIIA.ThYl4wMx 5'1 l:. fBi.l1 4i 1 Y iMR 41! B ar 4,IC 1. b.•nl u. WALL.IE'F.NUEi LEGEND unrs�iun. �"xee `MµFw. �w\uMlaex I.nYV^.YtibR1.W M'FU MLwy 's.JN:+"h NCAN 51.MPININ K WALL WTIII RIVFRRIK K I OUP}INS Mlpw+NlwlwtlMOM DIII,A WllLLl IJ4Yp W.,, oux^u awsuv ,tW.Ar u. .Ys 4GN SLbMI'R!(F'KN'hLl. A1LF Sll NP W.('II'K RFTAR4LVl1 WALL f,Wxµw,wmn. �w+%va. %Tn1RIYFRRUY KIMMIN.G n1a Innal.xmfsa u.-: waY brBY+.n N.V. I'M*1RI I ^'n.wla'.arl Rxwv' BNwxri4Fl.Nenx w..r n.Nw Y",. e i AS PWs'l411)S RtIYT. 1 AI Sit* I.INPS Ylfr Rl:wi VT IIAi I4N E.4LGTW, WVFR RIR K REIAiMRfG WV.L IIIUkWGSA AGT.I u`:vr 1nD4. 'II....„ ♦VI.AN. .*`i„xR�,• y ]Wdu ..Ytl"" �_ .s VLl itll•RUx`KR}-:AI.GLKi Vr':\LL Ri'tl\l1. iNIjMIR 11,.R.NA WIILI W'1118111W IwrRl.n NnW acrvnfn a•u I:J .'a .�r PRIVA I1. MON] VAR0S(SI I 11-11I I-71 w.mvin.vw ^Bnw{ +1.•� .a I,wI. eFJBAII t1Y'Vt,IV. .V v,�. .rvl` n.mr rNIT1 K+Wt,V {I141NIN11 ➢RIIV IVV IAM.RIIMM/11P\A„11♦ YMIFVN WWNA UY YI♦ '.LLFi 11., Yw.. II11V MAIIIA\t 14 •plx.P•A'.v,s WIr Y.Vn ry'..6tl •... ® SIM(lb: Ilk, M IND IIII ER ARI'.AS Seun,c. Fmnk RaEnxllarnuodalss. Inc.. AppLerl Planning. IN:. r4�Pl applied '- Figure 1.5-4 Landscape Plan Plant Palette El —E4 Pg70 1.5.8 Infrastructure/Utilities Infrastructure and utilities that would serve the Project site are summarized below. 1.5.8.1 Water Service Water service would be provided to the Project by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD, District). Water service extensions to the Project site would connect to existing facilities located in adjacent public rights -of -way. Final locations and alignments of service lines, and connection to existing services would be provided as required by the City and CVWD. A Will Serve letter for water service from CVWD (IS/MND Appendix H) has been obtained indicating CVWD ability and capacity to meet the Project's water demands. 1.5.8.2 Sanitary Sewer Service Sanitary sewer services would be provided to the Project by the Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA). Sanitary sewer service extensions to the Project site would connect to existing facilities located in adjacent public rights -of -way. Final locations and alignments of service lines, and connection to existing services would be provided as required by the City and IEUA. Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed by City/Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) wastewater conveyance facilities to treatment plants operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). IEUA Regional Water Recycling Plants provide tertiary wastewater treatment, producing effluent suitable for reuse in non -potable applications. A Will Serve letter for sewer service from CVWD (IS/MND Appendix H) has been obtained indicating IEUA ability and capacity to meet the Project's sewer demands. 1.5.8.3 Storm Water Management Systems The Project storm water management system, as approved by the City, would implement drainage improvements and programs acting to control and treat storm water pollutants. In summary, with implementation of the Project storm water management system, storm water runoff from the developed Project site would be directed to on -site bio-treatment areas and released in a controlled manner to existing storm drains. Components of the Project storm water management system would include a City -approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The Project WQMP [Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tentative Tract 20080 (MDS Consulting) March 2017] is presented at IS/MND Appendix F. Through implementation of the SWPPP and WQMP, the Project would comply with requirements of the City's National Pollutant Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-16 E1—E4 Pg71 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and other water quality requirements and storm water management programs specified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). In combination, implementation of the Project storm water management system including the Project SWPPP, WQMP, and compliance with NPDES Permit and RWQCB requirements act to protect City and regional water quality by preventing or minimizing potential storm water pollutant discharges to the watershed. 1.5.8.4 Solid Waste Management It is anticipated that Project -generated solid waste would be conveyed by existing service providers to the Mid -Valley Landfill. The California Integrated Waste Management Act under the Public Resources Code required that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City is currently meeting or exceeding all state -mandated solid waste diversion targets acting to reduce potential impacts at serving landfills. The City remains committed to continuing its existing waste reduction and minimization efforts with the programs that are available through the City. The Project would comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act as implemented by the City. Additionally, consistent with Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling, of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), as adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a minimum of 50 percent of the Project's nonhazardous construction and demolition waste would be recycled or salvaged for reuse. To these ends, a Project Construction Waste Management Plan would be prepared consistent with Section 5.408.1.1 of the CALGreen Code. These measures would collectively reduce Project construction waste and would act to reduce total demands on solid waste management resources. 1.5.8.5 Electricity Electrical service to the Project would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). New lines installed by the Project would be placed underground. Alignment of service lines and connection to existing services would be as required by the City and SCE. Any necessary surface -mounted equipment, such as transformers, meters, service cabinets, and the like, would be screened and would conform to City building setback requirements. To allow for, and facilitate, Project construction activities, provision of temporary SCE electrical services improvements would be required. The scope of such temporary Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-17 El—E4 Pg72 improvements is consistent with, and reflected within, the total scope of development proposed by the Project. Similarly, impacts resulting from the provision of temporary SCE services would not be substantively different from, or greater than, impacts resulting from development of the Project in total. 1.5.8.6 Natural Gas Natural gas service would be provided by the Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). Existing service lines would be extended to the Project uses. Alignment of service lines and connection to existing services would be as required by the City and SoCalGas. 1.5.8.7 Communications Services Communications services, including wired and wireless telephone and internet services, are available through numerous private providers and would be provided on an as -needed basis. As with electrical service lines, all existing and proposed wires, conductors, conduits, raceways, and similar communications improvements within the Project area would be installed underground. Any necessary surface -mounted equipment, e.g., terminal boxes, transformers, meters, service cabinets, etc., would be screened and would conform to City building setback requirements. 1.5.9 Fire and Police Protection Services Police and fire protection services are currently available to the Project site, and are listed below. • Fire Protection Services: Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. • Police Protection Services: San Bernardino County Sheriff under contract to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1.5.10 Energy Efficiency/Sustainability Energy -saving and sustainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated info all facilities developed pursuant to the Project. Notably, the Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project also incorporates and expresses the following design features and attributes promoting energy efficiency and sustainability. • The Project in total would comply with incumbent Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6); Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-18 E1—E4 Pg73 • To reduce water demands and associated energy use, the Project would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy).2 Project site development would also be required to implement the following: o Landscaping palette emphasizing drought -tolerant plants consistent with provisions of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and/or City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements; o Use of water -efficient irrigation techniques consistent with City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements; o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets, high -efficiency toilets (HETs), and other plumbing fixtures. 1.6 PROJECT OPENING YEAR The proposed Victoria and Hermosa Residential Project would be developed in a manner responsive to market conditions and in concert with availability of necessary infrastructure and services. For the purposes of this analysis, the Project Opening Year is r9r4 1TT1F3W1ZQ1-1 1.7 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary goal of the Project is to develop a high quality residential community. Complementary Project Objectives include the following: • Maximize development potential of the underutilized site by implementing a complementary mix of single-family residential products; • Take advantage of available infrastructure; enhance and improve local infrastructure systems to the benefit of the Project and surrounding areas; Z Reduction of 20 percent indoor water usage is consistent with the current CalGreen Code performance standards for residential and non-residential land uses. Per CalGreen, the reduction shall be based on the maximum allowable water use per plumbing fixture and fittings as required by the California Building Standards Code. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-19 El—E4 Pg74 • Provide a residential development that expands and diversifies the locally available housing stock; and that responds to the current and projected demand for single-family residential products within the City; • Preserve and protect the existing "Phelps" single-family residence which has been determined to have local historic value. 1.8 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS Discretionary actions, permits and related consultation(s) necessary to approve and implement the Project include, but are not limited to, the following. 1.8.1 Lead Agency Discretionary Actions and Permits • Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Approval of a Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT20080); . Design Review (DRC2017-00129); . Approval of a Variance (average lot size) (DRC2017-00130); Approval of Minor Exception (wall height) (DRC2017-00131); . Approval of a Landmark Designation (DRC2017-00485); and • All other associated building and engineering permits for construction. 1.8.2 Other Consultation and Permits Based on the current Project design concept, anticipated consultation and permits necessary to realize the proposal would likely include, but are not limited to the following: • Tribal Resources consultation with requesting Tribes as provided for under AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act. • Permitting may be required by/through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-20 E1—E4 Pg75 • Permitting may be required by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for certain equipment or land uses that may be implemented within the Project area. • Permitting (i.e., utility connection permits) may be required from utility providers. • Other ministerial permits necessary to realize all on and offsite improvements related to the development of the site. Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Project Description Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration Project Page P-21 E1—E4 Pg76 Part I: Environmental Information Form E1-E4 Pg77 Print Form ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) RANCHO (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line.) CUCAMONGA Planning Department (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,fuh. 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 If 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 NOT BE 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. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: SUBTT20080 Project Title: Hermosa & Victoria Residential Project Name & Address of projectowner(s): Hermosa, LLC 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: Manning Homes 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Updated 4/11/2013 E1—E4 Pg78 Page 1 of 10 Contact Person & Address: Craig Kozma, Manning Homes, 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Applied Planning, Inc. 11762 De Palma Road, 1-C 310, Corona, CA 92883 Telephone Number: (949) 250-4200 Information indicated by an asterisk () is not required of non -construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. `1) Provide a full scale (8-112 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project 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 west; 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): 6858 Hermosa Avenue. On the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street, approximately one half mile south of Interstate 210, and approximately four miles of Interstate 15. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 1076-081-01-0000 "5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 5.43 '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed 4.37 dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): None. Updated 4/11/2013 E1—E4 Pg79 Page 2 of 10 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: 1. Adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2. Approval of a Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT20080); 3. Design Review (DRC2017-00129); 4. Variance for average lot size (DRC2017-00130); 5. Minor exception for wall height (DRC2017-00131); 6. Approval of a Landmark Designation (DRC2017-00485); and 7. All other associated building and engineering permits for construction. 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 andlor hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The Project site evidences sandy/silty soils and slopes gradually downward from north to south. The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and is extensively disturbed by human activities. Most recently, the Project site was used as a tree farm, but now sits fallow. Trees remaining within the Project site are not viable specimens. Structures within the Project site include the "Phelps" residence, a detached garage, and a small storage shed The Phelps residence is considered a local Landmark, and will be preserved and relocated to "Lot 1" in the westerly portion of the Project site. Please refer also to the Project Biological Report, Cultural Resource Report, and Arborist Report. Updated 4/11/2013 E1—E4 Pg80 Page 3 of 10 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site.. Cite all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): Structures within the Project site include the "Phelps" residence, a detached garage, and a small storage shed The Phelps residence is considered a local Landmark, and will be preserved and relocated to "Lot 1" in the westerly portion of the Project site. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 5, presented at Initial Study Part II. 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affectthe site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: Vehicular -source noise from existing adjacent roadways is the main source of noise affecting the site. Noise levels, as received at the Project site, range from 51.5 to 66.6 dBA CNEL. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 12, presented at Initial Study Part ll. 12) Describe the proposed project in 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: As detailed in the Preface, the Project proposes development of a 20-Lot subdivision with 19 new single-family homes and relocation of one existing residence to proposed "Lot 1." The Project would be constructed in 3 increments, including a model home complex consisting of 2 model homes and a temporary parking lot. Total construction time is estimated at 15 months. For the purposes of this analysis, the Project is assumed to be completed and occupied by 2018 (Project Opening Year). 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 of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Single-family residential development exists to the north, west, and south of the Project site. Hermosa Park is located east of the Project site, across Hermosa Avenue. Please refer to Figure 1.3-1, presented as part of the preceding Preface. Updated 4/1112013 E1—E4 Pg81 Page 4 of 10 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 1, presented at Initial Study Part II. 15) Indicate the type ofshort-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on -site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? The Project would comply with all noise ordinances/codes as required by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 12, presented at Initial Study Part II. *16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees:. All existing trees on site will be removed. No scenic trees or otherwise viable trees would be affected. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Items 1 and 4, presented at Initial Study Part II. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: None. 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(gal/day) 14,100 Peak use .(gal/Day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. F1 Septic Tank 0 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 A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at (909) 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) 5,400 b. Commercial/Industrial (gal/day/ac) Updated 4/11/2013 Ell—E4 Pg82 Page 5 of 10 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: 20 Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Lot sizes range from 7,382 square feet to 11,294 square feet. Average lot size is 7,977 square feet. Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): Not Applicable. 21) Anticipated range of sale prices andlor rents: Sale Price700,000 s) $ to $ 800,000 Rent (permonth) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 3 Plan Types: Plan 1: 2,515-2,519 square feet; 3 Bedroom, 3 Bath w/Optional Bedroom 4 Plan 2: 3,527 square feet; 5 Bedroom, 4.5 Bath Plan 3: 3,417 square feet; 5 Bedroom, 4.5 Bath 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 3.05 persons per DU 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: 7 a. Elementary., 4 b. Junior High: 5 c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major functions) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: Not Applicable. Updated 4/11/2013 Page 6 of 10 E1—E4 Pg83 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) Indicate hours of operation: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: *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. Sewer and water service providers have been contacted, "Will -Serve" letters have been received. Fire protection and flood control services have not yet been contacted. As substantiated in the attached Environmental Checklist Form, the Project would not result in or cause significant impacts affecting water, sewer, fire protection, or flood control facilities, or related service providers. Please refer also to Environmental Checklist Form Items 9 and 14, presented at Initial Study Part Il. Updated 4/11/2013 E1—E4 Pg84 Page 7 of 10 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 PCBs; 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, 8 known. The Phase I ESA recommended that an ACM and LBP survey be completed on the structures prior to any demolition or destructive renovation activities. Additionally, recommended soil sampling and excavation was conducted as part of the Phase II ESA. Mitigation has been included for ACMs and LBP. The Phase II concluded that no further soil investigation and analysis is warranted. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 8, presented at Initial Study Part II. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage, or discharge of hazardous 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 application plans. No. Please also refer to Environmental Checklist Form, Item 8, presented at Initial Study Part II. 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 CommissionlPlanning 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 and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cuca---- Date: Signature: Updated 4/1112013 Title: Page 8 of 10 El-E4 Pg85 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 gal/day/acre 1863 gal/day/acre Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District Engineering & Water Resources Departments, Urban Water Management Plan 2000 Updated 4/1112013 Page 9 of 10 E1—E4 Pg86 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 E1-E4 Pg87 Page 10 of 10 Part II: Environmental Checklist Form El-E4 Pg88 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: SUBTT20080 2. Related Files: Design Review DRC2017-00129, Variance DRC2017-00130, Minor Exception DRC2017-00131, and Landmark Designation DRC2017-00485. 3. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary): Please refer to IS/MND Preface. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Craig Kozma, Manning Homes, 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 5. General Plan Designation: Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC) 6. Zoning: Residential - Low (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): Please refer to IS/MND Preface. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: Nikki Cavazos City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2750 Ext. 4311 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Craig Kozma, Manning Homes, (949) 250-4200 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): TBD GLOSSARY— The following abbreviations are used in this report: CVWD — Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR — Environmental Impact Report FOR— Final Environmental Impact Report FPEIR - Final Program Environmental Impact Report NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOx— Nitrogen Oxides ROG —Reactive Organic Gases PM10 — Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD — South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP—Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan E1—E4 Pg89 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 2 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017.00131, DRC2017-00485 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" or "Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated," as Indicated by the checklist on the following pages. () Aesthetics (✓) Biological Resources () Greenhouse Gas Emissions () Land Use & Planning () Population & Housing O Transportationffreffic () Agricultural Resources (✓) Cultural Resources (✓) Hazards & Waste Materials O Mineral Resources () Public Services O Tribal Cultural Resources (✓) Air Quality (✓) Geology & Soils ( ) Hydrology & Water Quality (✓) Noise O Recreation () Utilities & Service Systems (✓) Mandatory Findings of DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial evaluation: O 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. O 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. O 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) 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. Date:Prepared By: Date: 6� 'c�& viewed�7T��/ Lead Agency. Date; 91/281// 7 E1—E4 Pg90 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 3 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wit Less Than No Slgmtcant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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 O O (✓) ( ) 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga sits at the southern base of the San Gabriel Mountains. Mountain views are available from most areas in the City and provide a scenic backdrop for the community. Nearby roadways provide unobstructed views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and, from the foothills, of the lower -lying valley to the south. However, the Project site is not located within a designated view corridor as identified at General Plan Figure LU-6. As illustrated at Figure 1.3-1, Existing Land Uses, the Project represents the visually compatible continuation of existing residential land uses, and would not impede views of, or otherwise substantively affect scenic vistas or access to scenic vistas. The General Plan EIR also recognizes other scenic resources, including remaining stands of eucalyptus windrows, scattered vineyards and orchards, and natural vegetation in flood -control channels and utility corridors. None of these resources exist on the Project site, nor would the Project otherwise affect any such resources at off -site locations. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project would have a less -than -significant impact on a scenic vista. b) No Impact. There are no officially designated, or eligible, State Scenic Highways located within the City. As such, the Project would have no effect on scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg91 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 4 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Development of the Project site with single-family residential uses is anticipated under and allowed by the City General Plan. The Project would implement contemporary single-family residential designs representing an appropriate and compatible continuation of existing residential uses. Subject to City review and approval, final design concepts for the Project would be required to conform to regulations, guidelines, and standards established under the City Development Code. Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code ensures that the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Based on the preceding discussion, the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings is considered less -than -significant. d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would introduce new sources of lighting, including street lights and security lighting. Subject to City review and approval, all Project lighting would be required to conform to regulations, guidelines, and standards established under the City Development Code. Compliance with applicable provisions of the Development Code ensures that the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Based on the preceding discussion, the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg92 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: PotantiagY Signifcant with Less Than No Signifcant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or O O O (✓) 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? 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 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, c) No Impact. The Project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Nor is the Project site zoned for forest lands, timberlands, or timberland production. The Project would have no effect on farmlands, forest lands or timberlands. b) No Impact. No Williamson Act contracts are in place for the subject site. The Project would therefore not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning designations, nor affect any existing Williamson Act contract(s). d) No Impact. There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Further, there are no areas within the City that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the loss or conversion of forest land to non -forest use, or timberland .production. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg93 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 6 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Po1entWly S19Z n1 Than No Significant Impact Mitigation SIgnifcant Impact Incorporated Impact e) No Impact. There are no agricultural uses, forestlands or timberlands on the site. The Project does not involve other changes to the environment which could result in the conversion of farm land or forest land to other uses. Furthermore, there are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land. Therefore, there is no potential for conversion of forest land to a non -forest use. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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 () () (✓) ( ) 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: Potential air quality impacts of the Project are evaluated and substantiated in detail in Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions`Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017 (Project AQ/GHG Study). Analysis, results and conclusions of the Project AQ/GHG Study provide the basis for the following discussions. The Project AQ/GHG Study in its entirety is provided at IS/MND Appendix B. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4Pg94 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 7 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sl9nifcant WN 7S1gin1EM1mp.Ct slyae am Impact MiGgatlon Inmrporatetl a) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is locally responsible for administration and implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Currently, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. 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 SCAQMD AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions; updated emission inventory methodologies for various emissions source categories; and reflects information, plans, and programs presented in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP). Air quality conditions and trends presented in the AQMP assume that regional development will occur in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in its RTP. The AQMP further assumes that development projects within the region will implement appropriate strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions, thereby promoting timely implementation of the AQMP. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are identified at Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), as listed below. Project consistency with, and support of, these criteria is presented subsequently. • Criterion No. 1: The project under consideration will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS/CAAQS air quality violations or cause or contribute to new NAAQS/CAAQS violations; or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg95 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Patenlially SI NIDhanl Less Than No slgme am Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact • Criterion No. 2: The project under consideration will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2011 or increments based on the years of Project build -out phase. Criterion No. 1 The CAAQS and NAAQS comprise, and are reflected in, the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The Project LST analysis (presented under item b, below) substantiates that Project construction -source emissions and operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs, and therefore would not violate NAAQS or CAAQS. Further, the Project would implement applicable best available control measures (BACMs), and would comply with applicable SCAQMD rules, acting to further reduce its already less -than - significant air pollutant emissions. Moreover, the Project location proximate to local and regional transportation facilities acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated mobile -source (vehicular) emissions. Additionally, Project incorporation of contemporary energy-efficiency/energy conservation technologies and operational programs (refer to IS/MND Preface, Project Description, Section 1.5.10, Energy Efficiency/Sustainability); and compliance with SCAQMD emissions reductions and control requirements act to reduce stationary -source air emissions. These Project attributes and features are consistent with and support AQMP air pollution reduction strategies and promote timely attainment of AQMP air quality standards. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. Criterion No. 2 Criterion No. 2 addresses consistency (or inconsistency) of a given project with approved local and regional land use plans, and associated potential AQMP implications. That is, AQMP emissions models and emissions control strategies are based in part on land use data provided by local general plan documentation; and complementary regional plans, which reflect and incorporate local general plan information. Projects.that propose general plan amendments may increase the intensity of use and/or result in higher traffic volumes, thereby resulting in increased stationary area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4Pg96 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 9 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact when compared to the AQMP assumptions. However, if a given project is consistent with and does not otherwise exceed the growth projections in the applicable local general plan, then that project would be considered consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP and would not affect the AQMP's regional emissions inventory for the Basin. The Project does not propose or require any change in City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use designations, nor any increase in development intensity beyond that currently anticipated for the subject site. Because the land uses and development intensities proposed by the Project are consistent with the City General Plan, the Project complies with Consistency Criterion No. 2. AQMP Consistency Conclusion The Project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations (please see Table 3-4, presented subsequently). The Project does not propose or require any change in General Plan Land Use designations, nor any increase in development intensity beyond that currently anticipated for the subject site. The Project would not generate operational -source criteria pollutant emissions not already reflected in the current AQMP regional emissions inventory. Based on the preceding, the Project is considered consistent with the AQMP. The potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan is therefore considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would generate construction -source air pollutant emissions and operational -source air pollutant emissions. The incumbent SCAQMD/California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAP COA)-approved version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod, v2016.3.1) was utilized to estimate Project -related air pollutant emissions levels. Project emissions levels were then compared to applicable SCAQMD thresholds in order to determine if air quality standards would be exceeded; or if Project emissions would contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. Unless otherwise noted, CaIEEMod default values Rev. 4/2012 Ell—E4 Pg97 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 10 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potenflaliy SIg� ant ith Loan No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact and assumptions were applied throughout. Air pollutant emissions generated by the Project as evaluated in the context of applicable SCAQMD thresholds are summarized below. Regional Impacts Construction -Source Air Pollutant Emissions Project construction would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and painting. Modeled maximum daily Project construction - source air quality emissions are presented at Table 3-1. As shown, maximum daily Project construction -source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds, and are therefore considered less -than -significant. Table 3-1 Maximum Daily Construction -Source Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Year Activity ROG NOx CO sox PM10 PM2.5 2018 Demolition 4.0 43.8 24.1 0.1 2.4 2.0 2018 Site Preparation 4.7 48.3 23.4 0.0 20.8 12.4 2018 Grading 2.9 30.7 17.3 0.0 8.4 4.9 2018 Building Construction 2.8 24.5 18.9 0.0 1.8 1.5 2019 Building Construction 2.5 22.1 18.4 0.0 1.6 1.3 2018 Paving 1.9 17.6 15.5 0.0 1.1 0.9 2018 Architectural Coating 1.7 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 2019 Architectural Coating 1.6 1.9 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Peak Daily Total 4.7 48.3 24.1 0.1 20.8 12.4 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No source: I-OCOSeCl Air Uuality and Greenhouse Gas tmissions Analysis for tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. Operational -Source Air Pollutant Emissions Sources of air pollutant emissions associated with Project operations include architectural coatings, natural gas and electricity consumption, and mobile sources. Rev. 4/2012 E1-E4 Pg98 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Proiect 7-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pgtantla Sig thant ca Than No Significanntt Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Maximum daily Project operational -source air pollutant emissions are summarized at Table 3-2. Applicable SCAQMD regional significance thresholds are also presented. As indicated at Table 3-2, Project maximum daily operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds, and would therefore be less -than -significant. Table 3-2 Maximum Daily Operational -Source Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx CO sox PMtg PM2.1 Total Project Emissions 1.3 2.8 7.4 0.0 1.5 0.5 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No aoorce: rucuseo nu Wuanry ono vreennouse uas emtsstons Anatysts Tor tracr zuuou, ary or Kancno eucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. Regional Air Quality Impact Summary Project maximum daily construction -source or operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds and would therefore be considered less -than -significant. Localized Impacts Localized Significance Threshold Analysis The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the national and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS), Collectively, the NAAQS/CAAQS establish Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board's Environmental Justice Initiative 1-4. More specifically, to address potential Environmental Justice implications of localized air pollutant impacts, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs indicating whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg99 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifiitcant wh Less Than N. Sgniecam Impact Mltigatlon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact localized adverse health effects. LSTs apply to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM,o), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. Use of LSTs by local government is voluntary. Lead agencies may employ LSTs as another indicator of significance in air quality impact analyses. Emissions Considered/Methodology LSTs apply to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PMto), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)- The Project LST analysis incorporates, and is consistent with, protocols and procedures established by the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Methodology) (SCAQMD, June 2003). The SCAQMD Methodology clearly states that 'off -site mobile emissions from the Project should NOT be included in the emissions compared to LSTs." Therefore, for purposes of the LST analysis, only "on -site" emissions were considered. Construction -Source Emissions LST Analysis The LST mass rate look -up tables provided by the SCAQMD were employed to determine if Project construction -source or operational -source air pollutant emissions could result in significant localized air quality impacts. If the calculated on -site construction -source or operational -source air pollutant emissions do not exceed the LST mass rate look -up table levels then localized emission impacts would be less -than -significant. The LST Methodology (Methodology) presents mass emission rate thresholds for each Source Receptor Area (SRA); and for projects of 1, 2, and 5 acres, with nearest receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. For intervening project areas and receptor distances, the Methodology employs linear interpolation to determine applicable mass emission rate thresholds. If receptors are within 25 meters of the subject development site, the Methodology employs the 25-meter distance threshold. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg100 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 13 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sigant With Than No sgnieoam Impact MitigaMitigationS Ignigcant Impact Incorporatetl Impact The Project is located in SRA 32. The nearest existing sensitive land uses are the residences north of the Project site, and are about 47 feet (14 meters) from any significant construction area. The SRA 32 mass emission rate thresholds listed in Table 3-3 are based on 3.5 acres/day disturbance and a 25-meter source — receptor distance. Peak daily emissions presented at Table 3-3 represent maximum construction -source emissions, which would occur during Project site preparation activities. Table 3-3 summarizes the Project's maximum potential localized construction - source emissions impacts. Table 3-3 Maximum Construction -Source Localized Emissions - Unmitigated (pounds per day) Pollutant CO NOx PMto PM2.5 Peak Daily Total 48.3 24.1 20.8 12.4 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 11.0 7.0 Threshold Exceeded? No No Yes Yes Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. As shown above, Project construction -source PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs. These are potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is proposed to reduce impact significance. AQ-1 During grading and site preparation phases of construction, the work area shall be watered a minimum of two times per day. Table 3-4 presents the localized emissions after the application of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg101 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 14 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ess Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 potentiallyacc alg ll Than No httigafion Significant Impact ncorporated Impact Table 3-4 Maximum Construction -Source Localized Emissions - Mitigated (pounds per dav) Pollutant CO NOx PM10 PM2,5 Peak Daily Total 48.3 24.1 10.9 6.9 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 284 2,331 11.0 7.0 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. As shown above, watering of the Project site during construction, as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1, would reduce PM,() and PM2,5 emissions below the localized threshold. Operational -Source Emissions LST Analysis LST analyses appropriately consider only emissions generated by on -site sources. In this regard, the Project operational -source emissions LST analysis evaluates emissions that would be generated by on -site stationary/area-sources and also captures emissions that would be generated by on -site traffic. Table 3-5 presents the Project's maximum potential localized operational -source emissions. Applicable SCAQMD localized significance thresholds are also presented. As indicated, Project operational -source air pollutant emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs and would therefore be less -than - significant. Table 3-5 Maximum Operational -Source Localized Emissions Summary (pounds ner dav) Pollutant CO NO,, PMJg PM2,5 On -site Emissions 2.8 7.8 1.5 0.5 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 3 2 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. Rev. 4/2012 E 1—E4 Pg 102 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 15 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wth Lass Then No SignifiwA Impact Mitigation Significant Impact IneaWated Impact c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project area is designated as an extreme non - attainment area for ozone; a serious non -attainment area for PM10; and a non - attainment area for PM2.5. Germane to these regional non -attainment conditions, the Project -specific evaluation of emissions presented in herein substantiates that Project air pollutant emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds. The fact that the Project emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds indicates that the Project impacts in these regards would be less -than -significant on an individual basis, and under SCAQMD significance criteria, would not be cumulatively considerable. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard is less -than -significant. d) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors. As concluded in the above discussion of Localized Air Quality Impacts, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the sensitive receptors nearest the Project site would not be subject to emissions exceeding SCAQMD LSTs. On this basis, the potential for the Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less -than -significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Temporary, short-term odor releases are potentially associated with Project construction activities. Potential odor sources include, but are not limited to: asphalt/paving materials, glues, paint, and other architectural coatings. It is expected that any associated odors would quickly dissipate and would not adversely affect vicinity properties. Residential uses, such as those proposed by the Project, are not typically associated with long-term objectionable odors. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people is less -than - significant. Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 103 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 16 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130. DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 lass Then Issues and Supporting Information Sources: pp g Potentially Slgnlfi.nt With lane Than No Signifrant Impact Mitigation Slgdfipnt Impact Incorporated Impact Sources: Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or () (✓) () ( ) through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and 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 () () (✓) 0 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: Potential biological resources impacts of the Project are evaluated and substantiated in detail in Biological Resources Evaluation & Analysis, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Tentative Tract 20080, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA (Hamilton Biological) February 3, 2017; Arborist Report, Tract 20080, N. West Corner of Hermosa and Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg104 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Proiect City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 17 DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: polentlally significant With Less Than N. significant Impact tAlf" has significant Impact Incorporated Impact Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. (Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496) February 2, 2017; and Memo Re: Tentative Tract 20800, C/O Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street, Alta Loma, Ca. (Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496) March 30, 2017. Analysis, results and conclusions of these studies provide the basis for the following discussions. a) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. To assess potential Project - related impacts to biological resources, a site -specific assessment has been conducted. The following discussions summarize the results of the assessment, which is presented in its entirety as IS/MND Appendix C. Vegetation Communities The Project site contains a fallow Christmas tree farm and associated single- family residence. English walnut (Juglans regia), lemon tree (Citrus x lemon), pomegranate tree (Punica granatum), bouganvillea (Bougainvillea glabra), and various common ornamental species exist in proximity to the residence. The eastern quarter of the site is almost totally cleared, and supports mainly low weeds, including storksbill (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and golden crownbeard (Verbesine encelioides); and annual grasses, including red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), soft chess (B. mollis), and common wild oats (Avena fatua). The remainder of the site consists of cleared, disturbed land with scattered small, planted non-native conifers (Pinus spp., Juniperus chinensis). These trees exist among a much larger number of old stumps of harvested trees. Many of the standing conifers are dead. In between the trees are the same previously - mentioned weeds and grasses. The site contains one 50-foot tall kurrajong tree (Brachychiton populneus). Christmas tree farms are generally kept clear of competing woody vegetation, and the Project site is typical in this respect. The only native plant species recorded on the site is telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), a weedy species adapted to disturbed conditions. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg105 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 18 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and SupportingInformation Sources: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impaq Mi6ga0on Significant Impact tncaryonated Impact Wildlife Communities Sixteen native and one non-native species, all birds, were detected during the field survey. These include such local breeders as Mourning Dove, Anna's and Allen's Hummingbirds, Black Phoebe, Cassin's Kingbird, Common Raven, Bushtit, California Towhee, and House Finch, as well as wintering species that breed elsewhere, such as Ruby -crowned Kinglet and Yellow-rumped Warbler. No amphibians or reptiles were observed during the survey, but some common species could be expected, including the Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas) and Western Fence Lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis). The only mammal detected was Botta Pocket Gopher (diggings observed). Additional common, widespread species may also occur. Sensitive Species Numerous sensitive plant and wildlife species are known to exist within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the vicinity. Many are species associated with native oak woodlands and alluvial fan sage scrub. Such species were not observed during the field survey and are considered very unlikely to occur on this Project site due to the site's long history of extensive disturbance, including clearing of virtually all native vegetation. The site exhibits a lack of natural communities, and is completely surrounded by dense urban development. However, virtually all native bird species may be considered "sensitive" during the breeding season, as the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code both prohibit interference with the nesting activities of native bird species. Summary As presented above, no sensitive plant or wildlife species were detected at the site during the field survey. However, a variety of birds likely nest on -site. The following mitigation measure is necessary to avoid significant impacts to these species. Rev. 412012 El—E4 Pg106 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 19 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Slgnifcant With Lesssignifcant Than No Impact Mitigation Slgnifcant Impact Incorporated Impact BI0-1 Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active' nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300- foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure 131O-1, above, the Project's potential to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species is considered less -than -significant. b,c) No Impact. No riparian habitat or wetlands exist within the Project site or in the Project vicinity. Any existing vegetation serves as habitat for local common species. Implementation of the Project would not affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Wildlife corridors function to prevent habitat fragmentation that would result in the loss of species that require large contiguous expanses of unbroken habitat and/or occur in low densities. Due to the disturbed nature of the Project site and surrounding roadways and development, the potential for native wildlife species to use the Project site as a migratory corridor Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg107 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 20 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than No Slgnlncam Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact or nursery site is unlikely. The Project's potential to result in direct or indirect impacts on wildlife dispersal or migration corridors is considered less -than - significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.80) recognizes trees as a valuable natural resource that helps define the community's character and are therefore worthy of preservation. The removal or relocation of a Heritage tree on private property requires the review and approval of a Tree Removal Permit before removal or relocation. As defined by the City Municipal Code, "Heritage tree" means any tree, shrub, or plant that meets at least one of the following criteria: • All Eucalyptus windrows; or • All woody plants in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of 20 inches or more, as measured four and a half feet (4.5') from ground level; or • Multi -trunk tree(s) having a total circumference of 30 inches or more, as measured 24 inches from ground level; or • A strand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; or • Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the Planning Director because of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. All on -site trees were surveyed by a certified arborist to determine their eligibility as Heritage Trees. Based on the inspection, on -site trees either do not meet the ordinance's minimum size standards to be considered to be Heritage Trees, or are fruit and/or nut trees which are specifically exempted from consideration as Heritage Trees. The arborist reports are presented as IS/MND Appendix C. Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 108 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 21 SUBTT20080,'DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Lessslgniecant Than No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incomomted Impact Based on the previous discussion, the Project's potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance is considered less -than -significant. f) No Impact. As illustrated at General Plan Figure RC-1, Open Space and Conservation Plan, the Project site is not located within any identified conservation area. Additionally, the Project site is not located within any conservation areas identified at General Plan Figure RC-4, Sensitive Biological Resources. No other local or area -wide preservation or conservation plans or policies are applicable to the subject site. As such, the Project would not result in impacts involving local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or any other conservation plans or policies. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Biological Resources Evaluation & Analysis, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Tentative Tract 20080, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA (Hamilton Biological) February 3, 2017; Arborist Report, Tract 20080, N. West Corner of Hermosa and Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. (Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496) February 2, 2017; Memo Re: Tentative Tract 20800, C/O Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street, Alta Loma, Ca. (Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496) March 30, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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? Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 109 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 22 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifcanl with Less Than No S1gmf ant Impact. Millgafon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: To assess potential impacts to cultural resources, a Cultural Resources Assessment has been conducted for the Project site (Cultural Resources Assessment, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California [LSA Associates, Inc.] February 2017). The Cultural Resources Assessment is presented as Appendix D. The following discussions summarize the Assessment's findings. a) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The existing on -site single - story home was built in 1892, and is a modest vernacular residence with Victorian elements (see Figure 1.3-2, Existing Site Conditions). The site was planted with groves or vines as early as 1895; the groves remained until sometime after 1966. Two historic -period concrete features were identified and documented in association with the house. These consist of the remnants of a concrete -lined swimming pool and a rock -and -mortar retaining wall along Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue. The majority of the swimming pool has been removed; the remainder is broken and filled with debris. The retaining wall appears to either be the result of two different construction events or the original wall has been remodeled. The wall exhibits distinct differences in cobble material used; one section (along Victoria Street) appears to use irregularly sized cobbles and is most likely early construction; whereas, another section (along Hermosa Avenue) is constructed of uniformly -sized cobbles which is likely the later construction or remodel. The wall itself is temporally ambiguous, and neither feature was documented as a historical resource. The residence retains integrity of location and exterior integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. However, the integrity of the property as a whole has been compromised by changes to the setting, which in turn have diminished the integrity of feeling and association. Changes to the setting include removal of the on -site grove, replacement of surrounding groves with modern development, Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4Pg110 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 23. SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ess Than Issues and Supporting Information Sou PP 9 Sources: Potentially Sgwith nt Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Sio Impact incorporated Import Impactrt installation of wrought -iron and chain link perimeter fencing, and a temporally ambiguous stone retaining wall. Although the garage and shed may date to the historic period, neither contributes to the historic character of the property or residence. The residence was evaluated for eligibility under the California Register of Historical Resources, as well as City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark and Points of Historic Interest designations. Based on criteria set forth at Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register, the Cultural Resources Assessment determined that the residence would be considered a City Point of Historic Interest. After City review of the Cultural Resources Assessment, it was determined that the residence would receive a higher level of designation as a local Landmark. As discussed within the IS/MND Preface, Project Description, the on -site residence will be preserved and relocated to Lot 1 within the Project site. The property derives its significance from its association with the citrus industry of the area. However, aside from the residence, most of the features that convey that association have been lost. Therefore, it is important to retain features that make it identifiable as a historical home. The Cultural Resources Assessment identified the following character -defining features that should be preserved: • Footprint of the residence, excluding the rear addition and the concrete storage room; • Stone foundation (house and front porch); • Cross -gabled roof form; • Horizontal wood siding, fish scale wood shingles, and wood window and door trim; • Wood window frames; • Wood and glass front door; and • Chamfered wood porch posts with decorative wood spandrels suspended from the porch ceiling. Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 111 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 24 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sigffunt Thant No SigHfcam Impact Mitigation Si Impad Incorporated Impact To assess impacts to the residence, the Project was also evaluated under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (SOTS) for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The SOIS are divided into four categories: preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. The Cultural Resources Assessment evaluated the Project plans, and concluded that the Project would be consistent with the appropriate rehabilitation standards of the SOIS. However, to ensure that the appropriate standards are adhered to throughout relocation and rehabilitation of the historic home, the following mitigation measures are required. CR-1 The removal of historic materials or alteration of features that characterize the residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of materials shall be made in -kind. CR-2 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall be preserved and/or repaired/replaced in -kind. CR-3 Any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a character - defining feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. CR-4 Chemical or physical ,treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. CR-5 The design plans and elevations for the new detached garage associated with the historic -period residence should include a gable roof and siding that is similar in appearance to the house and must be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4Pg112' Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 25 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sgnifieam Significant with Less Than N. Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incomorated Impact The above mitigation measures shall ensure compliance with the appropriate SOIS. Projects that meet the SOIS are considered to have less -than -significant impacts to historical resources. As such, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 though CR-5, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered less - than -significant. b,c) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, an archaeological records search was conducted, as well as archival research, and an archaeological field survey. All exposed areas were examined for the presence of cultural resources. No cultural resources were identified during the field survey. Since the site has been used for horticultural purposes for approximately 75 years, the Cultural Resources Assessment determined that the likelihood of discovering subsurface cultural resources is minimal, except in the area surrounding the residence. Residential properties of this age typically used privies or septic pits and buried refuse relatively close to the house. Therefore, the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house. As such, the following mitigation is required. CR-6 Removal/relocation of the residence shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house. CR-7 In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg 113 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 26 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sigfihanl Less Than No significant Impact Mii,oftn Slgnlficanl Impact Incorporated Impact perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes their assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. CR-8 If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOl-qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CR-6 through CR-8, the Project's potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource or directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site is considered less -than -significant. d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The likelihood of encountering human remains in the course of Project development is minimal. However, as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, should human remains be found, 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. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains were found to be prehistoric, the coroner would coordinate with the California Native American Heritage Commission as required by State law. Based on compliance with these existing regulations, the Project's potential to disturb human remains is considered less -than -significant. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4Pg114 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 27 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Slgmfiepnt Significant with Less Than No ' Impact Mitigation Slgnificant Impact Incorporated Impact Sources: Cultural Resources Assessment, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (LSA Associates, Inc.) February 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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 () () (✓) ( ) 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? () () () (✓) 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: Potential geology and soils impacts of the Project are evaluated and substantiated in detail in: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (Associated Soils Engineering, Inc.) February 8, 2017. Analysis, results and conclusions of the Project Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg115 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 28 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Wdh Less Than No Slgafi ant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Geotechnical Investigation provide the basis for the following discussions. The Geotechnical Investigation in its entirety is provided at IS/MND Appendix E. In summary, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the Project site is acceptable for the proposed development, contingent on compliance with recommendations and performance standards identified within the Report. a, i) Less -Than -Significant Impact. No active or potentially active faults are known to exist at the subject site. In addition, the subject site does not lie within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Geotechnical Investigated concluded that surface rupture at the site is considered very low. The California Building Code requires design, engineering, and construction methods that minimize the effects of earthquake on structures. As part of the City's standard review and approval of development projects, any new development must provide a geotechnical study for review and approval by the City Engineer, and comply with the requirements of the approved geotechnical report, and applicable provisions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Code and California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with these requirements reduces potential strong seismic ground shaking impacts to levels that are less - than -significant. a, ii, iii )Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a region known to be seismically active and strong seismic ground -shaking is anticipated during an earthquake. Faults within the City include the Cucamonga Fault, Red Hill Fault, and the Etiwanda Fault Scarp. Each of these faults could generate an earthquake of a magnitude that could damage the improvements that are developed within the site. Liquefaction and seismically -induced settlement or ground failure are generally associated with strong seismic shaking in areas where groundwater tables are at relatively shallow depths (within 50 feet of the ground surface) and/or when the area is underlain by loose, cohesionless deposits. The Project site is not located within a potential liquefaction area as indicated at General Plan Figure PS-3, Geotechnical Hazards. Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation at a depth Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 116 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 29 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Petenflaoy Significant Less Than No signircant Impact Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact of approximately 25 feet. Historic high groundwater within the site vicinity is between 50 and 350 feet below grade. Historic high groundwater in nearby groundwater wells is approximately 154 to 197 feet below grade. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that, at this depth, the site exhibits negligible liquefaction potential. Short of a catastrophic event, design of structures in accordance with the Project Geotechnical Investigation, the California Building Code, and current seismic engineering practices is sufficient to reduce potential effects of ground shaking, including potential liquefaction hazards, at the Project site below the level of significance. Additionally, the Project is required to conform to site- and design - specific geotechnical investigations that would be mandated for each increment of construction. Through established Site Plan, Building Permit, and Certificate of Occupancy requirements, the City will verify that required design and construction measures are incorporated throughout Project development and are functionally implemented in the completed structures and facilities. Accordingly, it is anticipated that any site - specific geologic constraints which may be encountered during the course of Project implementation can be mitigated to a less -than -significant level within the context of the findings and recommendations of the required site- and design -specific geotechnical investigations, and existing City/CBC seismic design regulations, standards, and policies. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of seismic groundshaking or seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction is considered less -than - significant. a, iv) No Impact. The, site is not located within a landslide hazard area, as presented at General Plan Figure PS-3, Geotechnical Hazards. The Project site and surrounding properties are essentially level and exhibit little or no topographic relief. There is no evidence of recent or historic landslides affecting the Project site or vicinity properties. Based on the preceding, the Project will not expose people or structures Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg117 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 30 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No SigAncam Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides is less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is situated within a designated Soil Erosion Control Area (General Plan EIR Exhibit 4.7-4). The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions from September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities associated with the Project will temporarily expose underlying soils, thereby increasing their susceptibility to erosion until the Project is fully implemented. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated below the level of significance through the Project's mandated compliance with a City -approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and compliance with SCAQMD Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. At Project completion, potential soil erosion impacts in the area will be resolved, as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established, overcovering previously exposed soils. The Project involves construction of conventional residential facilities and supporting site improvements within an essentially level area of the City. The Project does not propose to significantly alter existing topography. Any required cut/fill within the Project area will establish suitable building pads and facilitate efficient site drainage. Based on the preceding, potential impacts associated with erosion or changes in topography are considered less -than -significant. c,d) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the site is appropriate for the proposed development, provided that design and construction occur in compliance with the requirements presented within the Investigation. The Project would comply with requirements of the final City -approved final geotechnical report, and applicable provisions of the City Building Code and CBC, to include design- and site -appropriate means to Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4Pg118 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 31 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Lass Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact avoid or minimize any expansive soils concerns that may be encountered. The Investigation also noted that actual subsurface conditions could differ from the field observations. As such, the Investigation recommended the following: GEO-1A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall be on -site during all grading and foundation construction to verify all observations/findings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the potential for the Project to 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; or be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, is less -than - significant. e) No Impact. The Project site will be provided sewer services. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Thus, there is no potential for adverse impacts due to soil limitations relative to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (Associated Soils Engineering, Inc.) February 8, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 El—E4 Pg119 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 32 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wm Less Than No slgnlfican, Impact Mitigation Significant Impact (ncorpcmted Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 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? Comments: Potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the Project are evaluated and substantiated in detail in Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017 (Project AQ/GHG Study). Results and conclusions of the Project AQ/GHG Study provide the basis for the following discussions. The Project AQ/GHG Study in its entirety is provided at IS/MND Appendix B. a, b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. In its most recent guidance, the SCAQMD Working Group has proposed a screening -level threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/year) for all land use types. Projects that generate GHG emissions of less than 3,000 MTCO2e/year would not be considered substantive sources of GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, GHG emissions not exceeding the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening -level would be less -than -significant. Project GHG Emissions are summarized at Table 7-1. As indicated, Project GHG emissions would not exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/year and would not be considered a substantive source of GHG emissions. Further, Project GHG emissions would not exceed an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 120 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 33 DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation significant Impact Inc.,paratetl Impact Table 7-1 Annual Project Emissions (Metric Tons) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2EQ Annual Operational Emissions 408.6 0.3 0.0 417.9 Annualized Construction Emissions 14.6 0.0 0.0 14.6 Total Annual Emissions 432.2 0.3 0.0 432.5 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Threshold Exceeded? NO source: r-ocuseo Air vuaury ano tareennouse Lsas emission Hnarysrs for Lracr zuusu, Cfry or rcancno Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases is less -than - significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Focused Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis for Tract 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Greve & Associates, LLC) February 17, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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 114 mile of an existing or proposed school? Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg121 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 34 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Than Than No Signl6cant Impact Mitigation SihoP.stgnific.nt Impact Incorporatetl Impact 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, () () () (✓) 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 ( ) () (✓) ( ) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: Potential hazards associated with the Project site are evaluated in Focused Air Quality and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Skylark Residential, Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Leighton Consulting) October 5, 2016 and Phase lI Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Skylark Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Leighton and Associates, Inc.) June 19, 2017. Results and conclusions of these studies provide the basis for the following discussions. Please also refer to IS/MND Appendix F. a) Less -Than -Significant Impact. During the normal course of construction activities, there will be limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the Project site. Long-term operations of the Project would involve the use of substances typically associated with individual households, like paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and motor oil. Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 122 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 35 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ess Than Issues and Suppoding Information Sources: Potentially Signiflcanl With Less Than Na sigmr am Impact Mitigation Signiflcanl impact ncorporated Impact 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, as well as a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a less -than -significant level. b) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. To assess on -site hazards, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) has been conducted. The Phase I ESA identified the following potential environmental concerns on the Project site: • Since the site contained horticultural uses for at least 100 years, there is a possibility that residual pesticides and/or herbicides may be present in on - site soils. • Based on the age of the on -site structures, it is possible that Asbestos Containing Materials (AGMs) and/or Lead Based Paint (LBP) may be present. • Due to the natural degradation of potential LBP paint applied to the exterior of the structures, there is a possibility that lead at concentrations exceeding established regulatory levels for residential use may be present in near surface soils surrounding the on -site structures. Based on these findings, the Phase I ESA recommended that an ACM and LBP survey be completed on the structures prior to any demolition or destructive renovation activities. As such the following mitigation is required. HAZ-1 Prior to any relocation, demolition, or destructive renovation activities involving the on -site structures, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP issues are not Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 123 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC201.7-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 36 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Si ni n1 Than No ign roam Impact MitigLess ation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact applicable to Project, or provide an action plan that will be implemented in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to abate any issues. HAZ-2 Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines. To address the possible presence (and extent of) contaminated soil that may be attributed to the past use of pesticides and/or herbicides, as well as lead in the soil surrounding the on -site structures a Phase II ESA has been conducted. Soil samples were collected from a total of 13 soil borings for analysis, with the following results: • Arsenic was detected in two of the collected soil samples at concentrations indicative of Southern California Background concentrations and do not require further action. • Lead was detected in soil samples at concentrations below the Regional Screening Level (RSL) for residential use. These concentrations and do not require further action. • Seven organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were detected, including 4,4- DDD, 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDT, alpha -chlordane, chlordane, gammachlordane, and dieldrin. With the exception of dieldrin, these concentrations were below the RSLs for residential use. The concentrations of dieldrin in soil samples collected at a depth of 0.5 feet (37 pg/kg) and 2.5 feet (560 pg/kg) bgs, exceeded the RSL for residential use of 34 pg/kg. Based on these results, approximately 7.61 tons of affected soils were removed from the site and properly disposed of. After excavation, confirmation samples were taken to confirm that all residual concentrations are below the RSLs for E 1—E4 Pg 124 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 37 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Lass Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pote 0lfally Potenwm Signifluni with Lass Than W. SigniImpact mitlgatlan SignMcant Impact Incorporated Impact residential use. The Phase II concluded that further soil investigation and analysis is not warranted. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, in addition to the analysis and excavation conducted as part of the Phase II ESA, the potential for the Project to 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 is considered less -than -significant. c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The school nearest the Project site, Deer Canyon Elementary School, is located approximately one -quarter mile northeasterly of the site. The Project proposes typical residential uses, and does not include elements or aspects that will create or otherwise result in hazardous emissions, and does not propose or require substantive handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Pre -packaged materials such as paint, solvents, glues, fertilizers, used during construction and maintenance are subject to extensive local, State, and federal regulations, and are not considered sources of potentially significant hazardous materials or hazardous emissions. d) No Impact. Based on information contained within the EnviroStor database (htto://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.aov/public/), maintained by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), the Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e, f) No Impact. The Project site is not located within two (2) miles of any airport. Airports nearest the site include Ontario International Airport and Cable Airport, both located approximately 5 miles from the site. At these distances, the site is located outside of any identified aircraft -related safety zones. As such, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg125 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 38 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially SgW,thant Less Than No Signi icanl Impact Mitigation Significant Impact a incorporated Impact g) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose designs or require activities that would interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a developed roadway network which provides emergency access and evacuation routes. Access to this existing roadway network will be provided to the Project site. On- going coordination with the local fire and police departments during construction will ensure that potential interference with emergency response and evacuation efforts are avoided. 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. The potential for the Project to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is therefore considered less -than -significant. h) Less -Than -Significant Impact. As shown at General Plan Figure PS-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the site is not located within a designated fire hazard zone. The Project site is located in a suburban area and no wildlands are located in the vicinity of the Project site. Fire protection services are provided to the City and the Project site by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). Adherence to local fire department regulations during construction and operation of the Project will be required. Based on the availability/proximity of existing fire protection services, the potential for the Project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires is considered less - than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Skylark Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Leighton and Associates, Inc.) October 5, 2016; Phase ll Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Skylark Residential Development, 6858 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (Leighton and Associates, Inc.) June 19, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg 126 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 39 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifcanl with L essSignificant Than No Impact Mltigatlon Slgnifcant Impact Inwryorated Impact 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () ( ) (✓) ( ) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 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 () () () (✓) that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of;;Iq ( ) 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? (✓) Comments: Results and conclusions of the Project -specific Hydrology Report [Preliminary Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (MDS Consulting) April 2017] provide the basis for the following discussions. The Hydrology Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg127 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 40 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and SupportingInformation Sources: Potentially Sig�OLess hant Than No Significant Impact Mltlgalon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Report, as well the Water Quality Management Plan [Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tentative Tract 20080 (MDS Consulting) March 2017], are presented as IS/MND Appendix G. a,f) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would be developed and operated in compliance with all applicable City and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations and water quality standards. Compliance with applicable existing City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPPs); National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements; and mandated Standard Urban Stormwater Management System (SUSMP) requirements would minimize the potential for the Project to substantively contribute additional polluted runoff during Project construction, or over the operational life of the Project. The Project SWPPP; design, construction, and operation of the Project stormwater management system; and development and implementation of the Project SUSMP would be realized consistent with applicable City and RWQCB requirements. Additionally, the Applicant has prepared a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the amount of pollutants, such as eroded soils, entering the drainage system. BMPs include both structural and non-structural control methods. Structural controls used to manage storm water pollutant levels can 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. A complete list of Project -specific BMPs can be found within the Project WQMP, presented at IS/MND Appendix G. On -site stormwater flows will be directed to underground water quality chambers at each residential lot. The chambers will treat the first flush prior to discharge. A high point with proposed Street A will split flows within the site. Runoff flowing to the east of the high point will be directed to a proposed catch basin located along the cul-de-sac. Flows will then enter a parkway culvert and be directed to Hermosa Avenue where they will enter the regional storm drain system. Runoff Rev. 4/2012 E 1—E4 Pg 128 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 41 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 PofenOap n1 Significant Less Than Ni, signmcam Impact Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact flowing to the west will be directed to Teak Way, and continue to Victoria Street where it will be captured by an existing catch basin before entering the regional storm drain system. The Project would provide connection to existing and proposed drainage systems in the least invasive manner possible. Design, configuration, and locations of proposed drainage system improvements would be reviewed and approved by the City and RWQCB prior to, or concurrent with, application for grading permits. All Project stormwater management system improvements would be constructed by the Project Applicant, or would otherwise be assured (via Project Conditions of Approval or other means established by the Lead Agency) to be in place and operational prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. Compliance with applicable City and RWQCB regulations and water quality standards, as well as NPDES permitting requirements, mandated SUSMP requirements, and Project BMPs would minimize the potential for the Project to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts in this regard are considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would not contribute to groundwater depletion, nor discernibly interfere with groundwater recharge. Water is provided throughout the City by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD, District). Groundwater which may be consumed by the Project and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as a whole, is recharged pursuant to the District's policies and programs. The Project will not affect designated recharge areas. Direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Project. Further, construction proposed by the Project will not involve substructures or other intrusions at depths that would significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Based on the preceding discussions, the Project's potential impacts to groundwater availability, quality, or recharge capabilities, are considered less -than -significant. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg129 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 42 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Signifcant Impact tncorporated Impact c,d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff through the introduction of new impervious surfaces on the site. However, there are no streams or rivers on or adjacent to the site; therefore, 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. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated below the level of significance through the Project's mandated compliance with a City -approved SWPPP and compliance with SCAQMD Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. Additionally, a Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project's potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site which may result in erosion or flooding is considered less -than -significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project incorporates all necessary drainage and stormwater management systems, and would comply with all stormwater system design, construction, and operational requirements mandated under the City Municipal Code and pursuant to policies and regulations established the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, preliminary hydrology calculations (provided at Appendix G) demonstrate that the existing storm drain system, combined with the proposed on -site system, is adequate to convey 100- year storm water flows from the site. In combination, the Project's stormwater management components, and compliance with regulatory requirements would act to preclude potentially adverse drainage and stormwater runoff impacts. g, h) No Impact. As shown at General Plan Figure PS-5, Flood Hazard Zones, the site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone. As such, no placement of structures in a 100-year flood hazard zone would occur as a result of Project implementation and no impact would occur relative to the placement housing or other structures within a mapped 100-year flood hazard area. i) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to adequately convey floodwaters. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg130 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 43 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Lesssignificant Than No Impact Mitlgafion significant Impart Incorporated Impact spreading grounds, concrete -lined channels, and underground storm drains. As previously mentioned, the site is not located within an identified flood hazard area. Additionally, the site is not located within a dam inundation area, as shown at Figure PS-6 of the General Plan. As such, the Project's potential to expose people or structures to significant loss due to flooding is considered less -than - significant. j) No Impact. The Project site is not located near any bodies of water or water storage facility that would be considered susceptible to seiche. Nor is the Project site located proximate to coastal waters, and as such, is not subject to tsunami hazards. No slopes of significance have been identified on or near the Project site, and the Project site has not historically been affected by mudflows. Impacts related to tsunami, seiche, or mudflow hazards will not affect the Project. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Preliminary Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 20080, City of Rancho Cucamonga (MDS Consulting) April 2017; Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tentative Tract 20080 (MDS Consulting) March 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. 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, 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project proposes construction of conventional contemporary single-family residential uses. The lone single-family residence that exists within the Project site (the "Phelps' residence) would be relocated to Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg131 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 44 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Palenlially 519�'hant Than No signifi and Impact Mlt[ Za significant Impact IncorpaateC Impact proposed "Lot 1," in the westerly portion of the Project site, adjacent to Teak Way. No established communities exist within the subject site, nor does the Project propose elements or activities that would disrupt or divide an established community. The potential for the Project to physically divide an established community is therefore less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use designation of the Project site is "Residential — Low" (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC). Zoning designation of the site is "Residential — Low" (2.0 — 4.0 DU/AC). The Project proposes development of the 5.43-acre Project site with up to 20 single-family residences. The Project's proposed single-family residential uses and proposed residential density of 3.68 DU/AC are permitted under the Project site's existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Standards for the Low (L) Residential Zone require an average lot size of 8,000 square feet. (Development Code Table 17.36.010-1, Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts). Lot sizes within the Project site would range from 7,382 square feet to 11,294 square feet, with an average lot size of 7,977 square feet. The Applicant has submitted a Variance Request to allow for the Project's average lot size (7,977 square feet) versus the 8,000 square feet average required under the Development Code. The basis for the Variance Request is excerpted below, and the Variance Request in total is presented at IS/MND Appendix A. While the project will be consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the preservation and relocation of the Hermosa Residence will result in a hardship to Manning Homes that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and strict application of the City's Zoning Code Standard related to the average lot area is not possible. The project has been designed to comply with all other zoning requirements including minimum lot area, lot width, depth, frontage, coverage, setbacks, density and parking. However, adherence to the average lot size of 8,000 square feet would prevent Manning Homes from achieving the project goals of preserving the historic house and developing a 19 Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg132 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 45 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifcant with Less Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorpmoted Impact [201 lot subdivision. The proposed Project would provide an average lot area of 7,977 square feet. As detailed above, the subdivision would exceed the City's minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and would be consistent with all Zoning Code development standards except for the average lot area. In addition, the average lot area proposed is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Attachment 2 provides the sizes of the surrounding residential lots. Of the lots shown, 35 of the 46 lots have a smaller lot size compared to the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the vast majority of the surrounding lots and the average lot area of 7,977 square feet will be compatible with the surrounding residential developments (Variance Request, p. 2). Perimeter wall designs and wall heights proposed by the Project would be up to 7.5 feet in height, as measured from the midpoint of retaining wall height(s) from lower grade(s). Proposed wall heights would therefore exceed the 6-foot maximum height permitted under the L Zone District. The increased wall heights proposed by the Project would promote privacy of perimeter lots and act to attenuate vehicular -source noise emanating from adjacent streets. The Applicant has requested a minor exception for the increased wall height(s) pursuant to Development Code 17.16.110, Minor Exceptions. The Project would otherwise comply with all applicable Development Standards for the L Zone District. With approval Variance Request to allow for minimum average lot size of 7,977 square feet, and the Minor Exception to allow for perimeter wall heights of up to 7.5 feet, the potential for the Project to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project is less -than - significant. c) Less -Than -Significant. The Project site is not located in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Nor does the Project propose uses or activities that would substantively affect an off -site conservation plan or off - Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg133 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 46 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 p°`°"'i°'lY signiecam Significant nl Less Than No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact site. Please refer also to the discussion of Biological Resources, Checklist Item 4. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga .General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. 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? Comments: a,b) No Impact. The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area or as a valuable mineral resource recovery site (General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1). Nor does the Project propose or require uses or activities that would affect off -site mineral resources. The Project will have no impact on the availability of known mineral resources. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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? Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg134 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 47 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifcant wm Lessslgnm Than No am Impact Mitigation Significant Impact incorporated Impact 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: Results and conclusions of the Project -specific Noise Analysis [Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 20080 City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (Landrum & Brown) February 17, 2017] provide the basis for the following discussions. The Project Noise Analysis is presented as IS/MND Appendix H. a) Less -Than -Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Overview The Project proposes conventional single-family residential development within an urban context. Residential uses proposed by the. Project are not considered substantive noise sources in either a temporary or long-term context. Construction of the Project would generate temporary and intermittent noise that could adversely affect nearby noise -sensitive receptors. Mitigation is proposed that would reduce construction -source noise to levels that would be less -than - significant. Traffic generated by the Project would not substantively affect area noise levels. While not a CEQA topic for the Project considered here, the Project land uses could be affected by vehicular -source noise emanating from adjacent Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg 135 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 48 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenllally Significant with Less Than No signor ant Impact Mitigation Signifcanl Impac4 Incorporated Impact Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street.' Recommended Project Conditions of Approval would ensure that the Project complies with applicable exterior and interior noise standards. Potential Noise Exposure of Project Land Uses The Project site would be affected by vehicular -source noise emanating from adjacent Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street. There are no other known or anticipated off -site noise sources that would substantively affect the Project. The Project Noise Analysis indicates that the Project first floor exterior areas along Hermosa Avenue would be exposed to design noise levels of approximately 66.6 dBA CNEL; and that Project first floor exterior areas along Victoria Street would be exposed to design noise levels of approximately 51.1 dBA CNEL (Project Noise Analysis, p. 5). The City General Plan at Figure PS-8 indicates that single-family residential uses such as those proposed by the Project are Conditionally Acceptable within exterior noise environments of up to 65 dBA CNEL. As a Conditionally Acceptable single-family landuse, new construction or development within the Project site should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and required noise abatement features are included in the design .2 t Within the context of the discussions presented here, it is noted that the City General Plan establishes standards and policies addressing environmental noise impacts that could affect the Project. CEQA however only requires an analysis of and mitigation of Project noise impacts on the environment, and of Project effects that could exacerbate existing conditions, thereby resulting in potentially significant environmental impacts. 2 The State of California's noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise -sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or more. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. Contemporary construction practices typically yield +1- 20 dBA exterior— interior noise attenuation. In a 65 dBA CNEL noise environment, a conventional structure would evidence interior noise levels of approximately 45 dBA. Similar requirements and performance standards are reflected in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg136 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 49 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-o0129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant withithLess Than No Sigmrcan Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Within the context of the above performance standards and requirements, the City has of Rancho Cucamonga has established 60 dBA CNEL as the maximum acceptable exterior noise condition for single-family residential uses (General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-28). The Project Noise Analysis concludes that with implementation of the design elements listed below, that exterior noise levels at the Project site would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL, and interior noise levels of the Project dwelling units would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. e Construct a 6-foot high noise attenuation barrier (relative to adjacent pad elevations) along the Project's westerly, Hermosa Avenue frontage, adjacent to Lots 9 — 12. The noise attenuation barrier may consist of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, 5/8-inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Location and orientation of this barrier is indicated at Figure 12-1. Provide adequate ventilation for a windows -closed condition (e.g., a mechanical ventilation system) per the Uniform Building Code for those homes constructed on Lots 9 — 12. Air conditioning units may qualify as adequate ventilation provided they conform to ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code. Required noise attenuation and ventilation systems would be implemented through the Project Conditions of Approval. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg 137 i I IF JONQUIL DRIVE (PAIME) 9 P I 5 6 7 .10 STREET LU r r {m 16 115 14 O 13 L.r 12 �y 4 I BARRIERMUSf VICTORIA AVENUE BE LOCATED AT TOP OF SLOPE Barrier Location (relative to pad elevation) N ff NOTTOSw Source: Landrum and Brown; Applied Planning, Inc. li �— appliedplanning Ill, Fig -Lire 12-1 Noise. Barrier Location and Orientation El-E4 Pg138 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 51 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sigo ficam Significant With Less Than No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Effects of Project -source Noise on Off -site Land Uses Project noise sources that could affect off -site land uses would include temporary construction -source noise and long-term operational -source noise generated by typical residential activities. Potential impacts of these noise sources on off -site land uses are evaluated below. Project Construction -Source Noise Project construction -source noise would result in temporary, intermittent, and potentially adverse conditions at proximate offsite receivers. Project construction - source noise would result from on -site construction activities, such as site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and site finishes, and architectural coating. Noise levels at off -site receptors would be greatest during initial site preparation activities (grading, excavation) when heavy equipment may operate near the Project boundaries. As discussed in the City General Plan EIR, a "typical construction project that is as close as 50 feet from residential land uses, the worst -case unmitigated peak construction noise levels would be as high 95 dBA. The average noise levels are typically 5 to 15 dB lower than the peak noise levels, so average noise levels (Leq) at the nearest residences would be in the range of 85 dBA (Leq). These [unmitigated] noise levels would be in excess of that which is permitted by the Noise Ordinance" (General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-17). Supplementing the General Plan's basic conclusion that maximum average received construction -source noise levels at 50 feet would be in the range of 85 dBA (Leq), recent empirical data indicates that maximum received construction - source noise levels at 50 feet would more likely approximate 79.6 dBA (Leq). Please refer to Table 12-1. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg139 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 52 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less Than No signiflca t Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Table 12-1 Construction Eauinment Noise Reference Levels Noise Source Reference Distance from Source (Feet) Noise Levels @ Reference Distance (dBA Leq) Reference Noise Levels @ 50 Feet (dBA Leq) Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 30, 63.6 59.2 Dozer Activity 30' 68.6 64.2 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 30' 71.9 67.5 Foundation Trenching 30' 72.6 68.2 Rough Grading Activities 30' 77.9 73.5 Residential Framing 30' 66.7 62.3 Water Truck Pass -By & Backup Alarm 30' 76.3 71.9 Dozer Pass -By 30' 84.0 79.6 Two Scrapers & Water Truck Pass -By 30' 83.4 79.0 Two Scrapers Pass -By 30' 83.7 79.3 Scraper, Water Truck, & Dozer Activity 30' 79.7 75.3 Concrete Mixer Truck Movements 50, 71.2 71.2 Concrete Paver Activities 30' 70.0 65.6 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities 30' 70.3 65.9 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes 50' 71.6 71.6 Concrete Mixer Pour Activities 50' 67.7 67.7 Forklift, Jackhammer, & Metal Truck Bed Loading 50' 67.9 67.9 Source: Field noise measurements conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc, at various construction sites July - October 2015. The nearest noise -sensitive land uses are located approximately 50 feet from the Project site and include: single-family residential land uses located northerly of the Project site across [private] Jonquil Drive; single-family residential land uses located southerly of the Project site, across Victoria Street; and single-family residential land uses located westerly of the Project site, across Teak Way. Rev. 4/2012 E1-E4 Pg 140 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 53 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially sgnirca Significant wan Less Than No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated rnp.d Additionally, single-family residential uses and a park are located approximately 75 feet easterly of the Project site, across Hermosa Avenue. The City of Rancho Cucamonga regulates construction -source noise at City Development Code Section 17.66.050 D. 4. As noted therein, the following actions/conditions are exempt from Development Code noise standards: 4. Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: 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 p.m. and 7 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 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA at the when measured at the adjacent property line (Development Code, p. 17.66-4). Unmitigated Project construction -source noise would exceed the above -noted 65 dBA standard at proximate residential receptors. This is considered a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project, and would be a potentially significant impact that could affect off -site receptors. The General Plan EIR concluded that with application implementation of Standard Conditions (SCs) and application of mitigation, potential construction - source noise impacts would be reduced to levels that would be less -than - Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg141 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 54 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Sig�mant h Less Than No significant Impact .Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact significant (General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-26). The Project land uses and associated construction activities are consistent with those anticipated by the General Plan EIR. The Project would not result in construction -source noise impacts not considered and addressed in the General Plan EIR. The Project would implement City SCs and mitigation measures (presented below) that are consistent with and expand on construction -source noise mitigation presented in the General Plan EIR3. [Basis General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures are bracketed.] City SCs complemented by the mitigation measures presented below would ensure that Project construction -source noise at potentially affected receptors would be reduced to levels that would be less - than -significant. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-1] Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: • Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screening/baffles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors • Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; • Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; a These General Plan EIR mitigation measures have been slightly modified for clarification and Project specificity. Rev. 4/2012 El—E4Pg142 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 55 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130. DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 ass Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Less Than No significant Impact Mitigation s9m,capt Impact In' rp=ted Impact • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered). • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; • Modify equipment to reduce source noise levels by intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. NOI-2 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-2] Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. NOI-3 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-3] The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12.1] shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. NOI-4 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-4] If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. 0-7KRKr7lf0a E1—E4 Pg143 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 56 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: si"ieeae, Potentially SigniwIth im Less Than No Impact MiligaUon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Based on the preceding discussions, and with application of City SCs and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NO]-4, the potential for Project construction - source noise to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels exceeding City standards is considered less -than -significant. Project Operational/Area-Source Noise Project operational/area-source noise contributors would include on -site traffic and typical residential noise generators (private outdoor activities, yard maintenance, etc.). Reference noise levels collected for other similar projects indicate that on -site noise stationary/area noise sources would generate noise levels that would not exceed 45 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Maximum allowable residential noise levels are identified at Development Code Section 17.66.050, F. Residential Noise Standards, excerpted below: Rev. 412012 F. Residential Noise Standards. 1. Table 17.66.050-1 (Residential Noise Limits) includes the maximum noise limits in residential zones. These are the noise limits when measured at the adjacent residential property line (exterior) or within a neighboring home (interior). Table 17.66.050-1 Residential Noise Limits Location of Measurement Maximum Allowable 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Exterior 60 dBA 65dBA Interior 45 dBA 50dBA Additional: (A) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured within any other fully enclosed (windows and doors shut) residential dwelling unit to exceed the interior noise standard in the manner described herein [in the Development Code]. El —E4 Pg 144 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 57 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially signifcant With Lesssignificant Than No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact (B) If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, each of the noise limits above shall be reduced 5 dBA for noise consisting of impulse or simple tone noise. Project stationary/area-source noise received at the nearest residential land uses would approximate 45 dBA and would not exceed the City's applicable residential noise exterior noise standards (60 dBA: 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., 65dBA: 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). Project stationary/area-source noise would therefore not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of City standards. Potential impacts in these regards are therefore considered less -than - significant. Vehicular -Source Noise Project -generated vehicular noise impacts were assessed by determining the Project's incremental contribution to ambient roadway noise levels. All other factors being equal, the logarithmic nature of the dB scale means that a doubling of the traffic volumes results in a 3.0 dBA increase in noise levels, regardless of the absolute number of vehicles. Similarly, a 20 — 30 percent increase in traffic volumes results in a 1.0 dB increase in noise levels, regardless of the absolute number of vehicles. Relative increases in noise levels resulting from increases in traffic volumes are summarized at Table 12-2. Table 12-2 Relative Increases in Noise Level from Increased Traffic Volumes Increase in Traffic Volume (Percent) *Increase in Traffic Noise (dBA, approx.) 10 0.4 20 0.8 30 1.1 40 1.5 50 1.8 60 2.0 70 2.3 Rev. 412012 E1—E4 Pg145 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 58 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ,. Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially SigWdhof ha Tn No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Table 12-2 Relative Increases in Noise Level from Increased Traffic Volumes Increase in Traffic Volume (Percent) *Increase in Traffic Noise (dBA, approx.) 80 2.6 90 2.8 100 3.0 'Note: Increase In trattic noise = 1u`iogto (Kelative I rattic Increase); e.g. A I percent Increase In trattic = 1.1 x existing traffic: resulting increase in trafficnoise = 10`logIa 1.1=10`.041=.41dBA; A 100 percent in traffic = 2.0 x existing traffic: resulting increase in traffic noise = 10`logm 2.0=10•.30 =3.0 dBA. The City General Plan EIR indicates that 60 dBA CNEL is the maximum acceptable exterior 24-hour noise condition for single-family residential uses (General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-28). For the purposes of this analysis, if ambient 24-hour noise conditions are below the City residential exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL, and Project vehicular -source noise would result in a perceptible (3.0 dBA) or greater increase in ambient conditions that would cause an exceedance of the 60 dBA CNEL standard, Project vehicular -source noise impacts would be considered potentially significant. If ambient conditions exceed the City 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard, a nominal (1.0 dBA) Project vehicular -source noise contributions to ambient conditions would be considered potentially significant. Traffic along adjacent Hermosa Avenue would be the dominant source of off -site noise affecting the Project site. The calculated maximum design noise level attributable to traffic along Hermosa Avenue is estimated at 66.6 dBA CNEL, exceeding the City's acceptable 60 dBA CNEL standard. Because the projected ambient condition would exceed the City's acceptable 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard, a Project -related incremental increase in vehicular -source noise of 1.0 dBA or greater would be considered potentially significant. The Noise Analysis indicates that design traffic volumes along Hermosa Avenue would total approximately 15,467 vehicles per day (Average Trips per Day, ADT). Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 146 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 59 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially signifcanl with Lela Than No signlfi ant Mg gation slgnigranl Impact Incorporated Impact The Project would generate approximately 191 ADT,4 or approximately 1.2 percent of the total projected traffic volumes along Hermosa Avenue. Incremental vehicular -source noise contributions realized from Project traffic would be less than 0.4 dBA (please refer to Table 12-1) and would not exceed the 1.0 dBA threshold condition noted above. Project vehicular -source noise would therefore not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of City standards. Potential impacts in these regards are therefore considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose or require uses or activities that would be considered substantive sources of on -going vibration. Temporary vibration that may result from Project construction activities are exempt from Development Code vibration level standards (Development Code Section 17.66.050 D. 4). For the purposes of this analysis, and to substantiate whether the Project would result in "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels," applicable criteria developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) were employed. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual indicates that received vibration levels of 0.10 PPV (0.071 RMS)5 could be distinctly perceptible.6 For the purposes of this analysis, received vibration levels exceeding 0.10 PPV (0.071 RMS) would be considered potentially significant. Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Typical Project construction equipment would generate ° Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012), Land Use Code 210, Single -Family Detached Housing — 9.52 ADT per dwelling unit (DU). Calculation: 9.52 ADT/ DU x 20 DU = 190.4 [191) ADT. s To assess the human perception of vibration levels in PPV, the PPV values are converted to RMS vibration levels based on the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual conversion factor of 0.71. s Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans) September 2013, p. 38. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4Pg147 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 60 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g SigWth Less Than No Zar,tlant Signifcant Impact Mitigation Signifcant Impact Inwrpora[etl Impact vibration levels of 0.003 PPV (small bulldozer) to 0.089 PPV (larger bulldozer) as measured at 25 feet. As with received noise levels, received vibration levels attenuate with distance. In general, manmade ground -borne vibrations attenuate rapidly with distance from the source. Heavy construction equipment could temporarily and intermittently operate within 50 feet of the nearest residential land uses (located northerly, southerly, and westerly easterly of the Project site). However, even at 25 feet, the maximum anticipated received vibration level (0.089 PPV) would not exceed the 0.10 PPV threshold condition. At distances approximating 50 feet, these vibration levels would be further reduced. Based on the preceding discussions, there is little (if any) potential for the Project to result in or cause exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. This potential impact is therefore considered less -than -significant. c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Long-term Project noise contributions that would exceed City standards would represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise conditions. As discussed at Checklist Item 12.a, Project area/source noise contributions, and vehicular -source noise contributions would not exceed applicable City standards. The Project does not propose or require other permanent uses or permanent noise sources that would substantively affect ambient noise conditions. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise conditions in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project is considered less - than -significant. d) Less -Than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Temporary or periodic Project noise contributions exceeding. City standards would represent a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise conditions. As discussed at Checklist Item 12.a), Project construction -source noise impacts are mitigated to levels that would not exceed City standards and would therefore not Rev. 4/2012 E 1—E4 Pg 148 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 61 7-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant W h Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact h.,omted Impact substantively affect ambient noise conditions. Moreover, Project construction - source noise would be transient and intermittent, and would dissipate entirely at the conclusion of construction activities, with no long-term effect on ambient noise conditions. The Project does not propose or require other temporary uses or temporary noise sources that would substantively affect ambient noise conditions. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise conditions in the Project vicinity above levels exiting without the Project is considered less -than - significant as mitigated. e, f) No Impact. Ontario International Airport, the nearest airporUairfield, is located approximately 5 miles southerly of the Project site. While occasional aircraft overflight is expected, substantive aircraft -related noise would not affect the Project area. Moreover, the Project does not propose activities or uses that would cause or otherwise affect airport -related noise impacts. Based on the preceding there is no potential for the Project to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to airports or airport activities. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; TTM 20080 Noise Analysis (Landrum & Brown) June 14, 2017; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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? Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg149 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 62 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 ess Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 poterdiauy Slg 1'h ess Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Slgnifwnl mead Incorporated Impad Comments: a) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Official local and regional population projections are predicated upon buildout of the City in accordance with the General Plan. Single-family residential development proposed by the Project would directly contribute to growth of the City. Notwithstanding, the Project single-family residential land uses and development intensities are consistent with those anticipated under the City General Plan. The Project would therefore not result in population growth beyond that anticipated under the General Plan. Indirect population growth inducement could result from creation of additional jobs and resulting attraction of new residents. Indirect growth inducement could also result from extension of infrastructure and services to areas not currently served, or substantial capacity/capability upgrades to existing systems and services. Development of the Project site would generate temporary construction jobs. However, the Project does not propose business or commercial uses that would result in substantive permanent new employment opportunities or substantive population growth related to the creation of new jobs. The subject site is currently served by all necessary utilities and services, and creation of entirely new infrastructure systems or development of new services is not required. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to induce substantial population growth in the area is considered less -than -significant. b, c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Except for the existing 'Phelps" single-family residence and associated ancillary buildings (garage, storage, etc.), the Project site is vacant. As part of the Project, the existing Phelps residence would be relocated to proposed "Lot 1" in the westerly portion of the Project site. The Project does not otherwise involve or propose the displacement of any on -site or Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 150 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 63 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and SupportingInformation Sources: Po1enpa1'Y SigWiN nificant Lass Than No usn' SignpafR Impa.'orated Mitigagon Significant mpact tn Impact offsite housing stock. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Fire suppression and emergency response services are provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District (Fire District). The Project would incrementally contribute to area -wide demands for fire suppression and emergency response services. Project development would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing fire resistant designs, fire suppression systems, adequate fire access, fire flows, and number and locations of hydrants. In combination, these preventive design measures act to reduce demands for fire protection services and reduce adverse effects of fires. Further, fees and taxes paid by the Project would provide funds Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg151 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 64 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant win Lesssignificant Than Na Impact Mitigation Significan! Impact Incorporated Impad available for service enhancements commensurate with Project -related demands for fire protection services. Operations of the Fire District provide an indication of population -based fire protection/emergency response demands. In this regard, the Fire District responded to a total of 15,435 incidents during for the 2016 reporting period.7 The Fire District served an estimated 2016 City population of approximately 175,681 persons.8 While not strictly population driven, this would indicate an incident response to population ratio of 0.088, or approximately one incident per 11.4 persons. In this context, the Project at 20 dwelling units and an estimated 3.05 persons per households, would yield a service population of 62 persons, and would account for approximately 5.8 incident responses annually. This translates to approximately 0.04 percent (0.0004) of the 15,435 Fire District responses during the 2016 reporting period. The Project site is currently served by fire protection services, and the nominal (0.04 percent) increase in incident responses generated by the Project would not substantively increase area service demands and would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Implementation of the Project would incrementally increase demands for fire protection services and would contribute cumulatively to demands for fire protection services within the City and region. As means of offsetting any incremental demands for services, the Project would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable City and Fire District requirements. Moreover, the Project is required to comply with agency -specific criteria outlined in the Project Conditions of Approval. The Project would comply with these Conditions of Approval and subsequent Fire District requirements that may be ' City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Fiscal Year 2017118 Preliminary Budget, p. 224. g Year 2016 demographic information from: California Department of Finance (DOF). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2017 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Web. June 14, 2017 http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. IGZM1lf'Z67ifha E1—E4 Pg152 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 65 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Sig�icant Less Than No sotenualiy Slgnlficand Impact Midg-con Significant Impact Incorporated Impact identified through the City's final site plan and plan check/building permit review processes. Compliance with these requirements further reduces potential demands for, and impacts on, fire department and emergency response services. Funding for any expansion or enhancement of current fire protection services would be provided through the City's general fund, which is maintained through the collection of taxes. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to require new or physically altered fire protection facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts is considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Police protection services for the Project area are provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff under contract to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. For residential facilities such as those proposed by the Project, provision and maintenance of adequate police protection services is realized through a combination of: • Project site and facility designs that incorporate appropriate safety and security elements; and • Adequate law enforcement funding. The City 2017/2018 Preliminary Budget indicates that Sheriff Department staffing serving the City included 137 Safety Personnel for the 2016/2017 Fiscal Year.10 Year 2016 California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated population of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is 175,681 persons.11 This yields an approximate 7o Preliminary Budget p. 219. " California Department of Finance (DOF). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2017 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Web. June 11, 2017. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg153 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 66 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polenllally &gM1fl nt Than No sgNfi ant 1n 0 Mitgallon Sip fficanl Ie sd IncMp02RE Impacl ratio of 0.78 Safety Personnel per 1,000 service population. The 20 residential units implemented under the Project would result in an estimated service population of 62 persons, requiring approximately 0.05 additional Safety Personnel to maintain the 2016 service ratio of 0.78 Safety Personnel/1000 service population. The Project site is currently provided police protection services, and the additional 0.05 sworn personnel required to serve the Project would not warrant construction of new facilities. The Project would therefore not require new or physically altered police protection facilities. Introduction of buildings, vehicles, and residents to the Project site would incrementally increase demands for police protection services. To reduce demands on police protection services, the Project site plan and proposed facilities designs would be subject to review and approval by the City Planning Department, City Building Department, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department. City and Sheriff Department review protocols and criteria would ensure incorporation of appropriate safety and security elements throughout the Project including but not limited to: appropriate site plan and building designs, incorporation of security and alarm systems where appropriate, adequate outdoor lighting, and provision of defensible spaces. Additionally, the Project Applicant would remit requisite fees providing funding to expand or enhance current police protection services in accordance with Municipal Code Section 3.64. For the Project's single-family residential uses, the Police Impact Fee would be $182 per dwelling unit.12 This fee is due upon issuance of a building permit or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. The City, in consultation with the Sheriff Department, would ultimately determine the most effective use of fees and other revenues generated by the Project, and how they would be employed for the provision and enhancement of police protection services. t2 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fee Schedule. Web. August 29, 2017. htlos://www.citvofre.us/civiraxffiiebank/blobdioad.asox?Blobl D=29639 Rev. 412012 E 1-E4 Pg 154 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 67 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Las. Than and Supporting Information Sources: Potenllelly Significant with LamIssues Than No Sgmfi em ImpacC Mitigation Sigolacan( Impact In.Torated Impact Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts is considered less -than -significant. c, d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Alta Loma School District (Grades K - 8) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (Grades 9 - 12), collectively Districts, would accommodate additional school -age populations resulting from the Project. Current (2016 - 2017) enrollment of the Alta Loma School District is approximately 5,988 students, current (2016 - 2017) enrollment of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District is approximately 23,894 students.13 Development of the Project's 20 single-family residential units would increase the student population within the Districts, increasing demands on Districts' facilities. Development of similar residential projects, indicates that the Project total student generation across all grade levels would total less than 30 students, or approximately 0.1 percent (0.001) of the Districts' 2016 - 2017 total enrollment. The nominal total increase (less than 30 students across all grade levels) and proportional increase (approximately 0.1 percent of the Districts' student population) in student populations resulting from the Project would not require new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Incremental demands on school facilities attributable to development projects are mitigated through mandated payment of school impact fees. School Facility Fees that would be assessed of the Project are estimated at $1.37/sf (Chaffey Joint Union High School District).74 At present, the Alta Loma School District does not assess residential development impact fees.15 tS California Department of Education, Dataquest. Enrollment Multi -Year Summary by Grade. Web. June 20, 2017. htto:/Idc.cde.ca.gov/dataguestidataguest.asp Phone conversation with Chaffey Joint Union High School District Staff, June 20, 2017. 5 Phone conversation with Alta Loma School District Staff, June 20. 2017. Rev. 4/2012 E1-E4 Pg155 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080. DRC2017-00129. DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 68 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant nt Than No Significant Impact Millgatlan Significant Impact Incorporated Impact The Project Applicant would pay requisite school impact fees. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered school facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts is considered less -than -significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Development of the Project would require established public agency oversight including, but not limited to, plan check and permitting actions by the City Planning Department, City Engineering Services Department, City Building and Safety Services Department, City Public Works Services Department, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. These actions typically fall within the currently assigned responsibilities of these agencies, and are paid for via plan check and inspection fees assessed of the Project. The scale and type of development proposed by the Project (20 single-family residential units on less than 6 acres) within a developed urban environment that is served by all necessary utilities and public services indicates that no new or expanded facilities would be required to accommodate oversight or review of the Project. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered "other" public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Communication with Chaffey Joint Union High School District Staff; Communication with Alta Loma School District Staff; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg 156 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 69 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g potancal Significant Less Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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, b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project residential uses would result in increased resident populations and associated increased demands for neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Parks and recreation services demands are offset through mandated payment of the City's Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fee; Park Improvement Impact Fee; and Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee. The City would assign fees assessed of the Project to park and recreation improvements consistent with demonstrated demands and pursuant to the City Park/Recreation Improvements Program(s), acting to ensure that increased use of parks and recreational facilities attributable to the Project resident population would not result in substantial physical deterioration facilities. Further, the nominal service population resulting from the Project (62 persons) does not warrant the construction entirely new or substantively expanded parks or recreation facilities. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur; or to include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg 157 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 70 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information OU(C@S: tlOn S PP g Potentially sigW thznl Laos Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 2000061027 (Bon Terra Consulting) February 16, 2010; TTM 20080 Development Concept, June 2017. 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? () () (✓) ( ) f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs () () (✓) ( ) regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance for safety of such facilities. Comments: a) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City has determined that based on the Project's nominal peak hour trip generation (less than 50 peak hour trips), that detailed analysis of the Project's potential traffic impacts is not warranted. Project trip generation is summarized at Table 16-1. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg158 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 71 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Then Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially significant with Lesssignmwnt Than N. Impact Mltrpa Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Table 16-1 Project Trip Generation Summary ITE Total Peak Land Land Use Metric Total DU Avg. Daily Hour Trips Total Use Code TrslDU ip Daily Trips AM pM Single Family Detached Residential 210 DU 20 9.52 16 20 191 Notes: Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012). 2 DU = Dwelling Units The "50 or more peak hour trips' analytic protocol noted above is consistent with standard industry practice and is employed by agencies throughout southern California including but not limited to: Caltrans, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, and the County of Orange. Unless substantively affected by other environmental or physical factors, development proposals that generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips would not typically result in potentially significant transportation/traffic impacts. The Project would construct all necessary site -adjacent improvements pursuant to City Conditions of Approval acting to reduce any potential localized transportation/traffic impacts. Moreover, any incremental effects of Project traffic on the area transportation system would be offset by the Project's mandated payment of the City Transportation Development fee ($9,382.00/DU-effective March 1, 2017). Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system is considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips and would not contribute substantive traffic to any designated congestion management program (CMP) facilities, nor would Project traffic otherwise demonstrably affect CMP facilities. On this basis, the potential for the Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg159 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & HermosaResidential Project Page 72 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sig Significant Less Than No significa nt Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Project to conflict with an applicable congestion management program is considered less -than -significant. c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose elements or aspects that would affect air traffic patterns. The nearest airport is Ontario International Airport, approximately 5 miles southerly of the Project site. No other public or private airstrips exist proximate to the Project. The potential for the Project to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, is therefore less -than -significant. d, e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose elements or aspects that would intrinsically increase transportation/traffic hazards or restrict emergency access. In conjunction with the approval of building permits, the City would review all Project designs and plans to assure compliance with applicable emergency access and safety requirements and thereby preclude or resolve any potential emergency access concerns. The potential for the Project to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or result in inadequate emergency access is therefore less -than -significant. f) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose elements or aspects that would inherently conflict with adopted alternative transportation policies. On a long-term basis, the Project may result in increased demand for public transportation as residences are developed and occupied. Serving transit agencies (in this case, Omnitrans) routinely review and adjust their ridership schedules to accommodate public demand. The need for transit - related facilities, including but not limited to bus shelters and bicycle parking, would be coordinated between the City and the Project Applicant, with input from transit providers as applicable, as part of the City's standard development review process. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg160 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 73 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC201.7-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Less8ignificam Than No Impact Mitlgatlon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Pedestrian walkways would be provided within the Project site and would connect the Project site to adjacent land uses. The Project would facilitate and would not obstruct City goals and policies to provide efficient and safe pedestrian access. Based on the preceding discussions, the potential for the Project to conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation is considered less -than - significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, 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: a) 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 b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion O O (✓) ( ) 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. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg161 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 74 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ao1enpa1'Y Significant With Less Than No significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incpryoraletl Impact Comments: a,b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Within the Project site, there are no known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that are 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). Nor is it anticipated that the Project would adversely affect off -site TCRs. Tribal Resources Consultation (Consultation) with requesting Tribes has been initiated as provided for under AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act. Consultation documentation is provided at MND Appendix J. Pursuant to the Consultation process, if potentially significant impacts to TCRs are identified, the City and affected Tribe(s) will mutually agree to measures that would avoid or mitigate these impacts. Alternatively, affected parties acting good faith and after reasonable effort, may conclude that a mutual agreement cannot be reached. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined at Public Resources Code 21074 is considered less -than -significant. Sources: AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act; Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 18. 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? Rev. 412012 E1—E4 Pg162 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 75 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Potenignifiwnt Significant With Less Than No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Inw,ponated Impact 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? 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) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed by City/Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) wastewater conveyance facilities for treatment by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). IEUA Regional Water Recycling Plants provide tertiary wastewater treatment, producing effluent suitable for reuse in non -potable applications. IEUA Regional Plant 1 (RP-1) and Regional Plant 4 (RP-4) treatment facilities serving the City and the Project site. IEUA descriptions of the RP-1 and RP-4 facilities are presented below: Rev. 4/2012 Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP-1) is located in the City of Ontario near the intersection of State Highway 60 and Archibald Avenue. This facility was originally commissioned in 1948 and has undergone several expansions to increase the design wastewater treatment capacity to the current 44.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and biosolids treatment capacity equivalent to a wastewater flow rate of 60.0 mgd. This facility serves the Cities of Ontario, Rancho E 1—E4 Pg 163 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 76 DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Than No signifi and Impact Ni igation Slgnificant Impact Incorporated Impact Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair, Fontana and an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County.16 Located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4 (RP-4) has been in operation and producing recycle water since 1997. RP-4 treats an average flow of 5 million gallons per day and is operated in conjunction with RP-1 to provide recycled water to users. The RP-4 facility is being expanded from its current capacity of 7 MGD to 14 MGD.17 Project -generated wastewater would be typical of residential sources, and would not require treatment beyond that provided by existing and programmed IEUA facilities. Moreover, the Project would be developed and operated in compliance with the City regulations and standards of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Wastewater treatment demands of the Project can be accommodated within the scope of existing/programmed IEUA facilities and would not cause or result in exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board is considered less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Water service is currently provided to the Project site by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD, District). All CVWD water is treated consistent with State and federal requirements ensuring its safety and potability. Three (3) plants provide water treatment for CVWD service area customers: 16 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 'Regional water recycling plant 91." Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Web. 2 Aug. 2016. " Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 'Regional water recycling plant 94." Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Web. 2 Aug. 2016. Rev. 4/2012 El—E4 Pg164 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 77 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 P°'a"cony SigWah nt Less Than No Sigaifwnt Impact Mitigation Significant mpact law olated Impact • Arthur H. Bridge Treatment Plant; • Royer Nesbit Treatment Plant; and • Lloyd W. Michael Treatment Plant. No additional treatment beyond that currently provided by CVWD is required to specifically meet the Project's water demands. Water service and connection fees paid by the Project and other water customers act to fund area water treatment facilities. Wastewater conveyance facilities are provided by the City and CVWD, with wastewater treatment services by the IEUA. The Project would pay sewer connection and service fees, which act to fund City, CVWD, and IEUA improvement plans, operations, and maintenance. The IEUA, as a regional wastewater treatment provider, would determine when and in what manner treatment facilities will be constructed and/or upgraded to meet increasing demands of area -wide development, including the incremental demands of the Project. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project's potential to 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, is considered less -than -significant. c) Less -Than -Significant Impact. Management and conveyance of Project storm water discharges is adequately addressed through connection to existing storm water management systems. As discussed at Checklist Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality all proposed connections to, or modifications of, storm water drainage systems would require review and approval by the City and the SARWQCB. The potential for the Project to require or result in new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could result in adverse environmental effects, is considered less -than -significant. Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg165 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 78 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sou: PP 9 Sources: Pelengally Slgnir, nt L n No significant Impact Mil(gaficn Significant Impad Inwrporated Impact d) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The 2015 Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD, District) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) comprehensively addresses water demand and supply throughout the District's service area, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Development proposed by the Project is consistent with residential development of the area envisioned under the UWMP. As documented within the UWMP, water supplies available to District customers are sufficient to meet all existing demands, and anticipated future demands (including the Project's demands) under normal, single -dry year, and extended drought conditions. Even in the event of water supply shortages or water emergencies, the District has in place water shortage contingency plans which ensure provision of priority water services to all its existing and anticipated customers, including the Project. State law requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for residential projects that propose more than 500 dwelling units. Because the Project proposes the development of up to 20 dwelling units, preparation of a WSA is not required. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to require new or expanded water supply entitlements is considered less -than -significant. e) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would generate additional demands for wastewater treatment services. Based on planning factors attached to the City's Environmental Information Form, single-family residential uses are anticipated to generate approximately 270 gallons of wastewater per day/dwelling unit (Environmental Information Form, Estimated Water Use and Sewer Flows for New Development). The Project, at 20 single-family dwelling units, would therefore generate an estimated 5,400 gallons of wastewater per day. This wastewater volume is accounted for and reflected in current and programmed IEUA wastewater treatment facilities planning. That is, IEUA wastewater treatment facilities construction and planning reflects development of Rev. 4/2012 El —E4 Pg 166 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 79 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Patenlially Slgnlfcanl with Leas Than No signmaam Impact Mltiga0on Significant Impact Incarparaled Impact the City pursuant to the City General Plan. Because the Project land uses and development intensities are consistent with the General Plan, the Project's incremental wastewater treatment demands are reflected in IEUA current and planned wastewater treatment facilities improvements. Further, the General Plan EIR determined that wastewater treatment demands associated with the buildout of the General Plan would be less -than -significant (General Plan EIR p., 4.17-20). The wastewater increment generated by the Project is reflected in that determination. The potential for the Project to exceed current or anticipated wastewater treatment capacities is therefore considered less -than -significant. Please refer also to the discussion of RP-1 capacities and functions, presented at Checklist Item 18 (a). f) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Mid -Valley Landfill (Landfill) is the anticipated primary destination of Project -generated solid waste that is not otherwise diverted or recycled. The Landfill has a daily maximum throughput of 7,500 tons per day, with a remaining capacity of 67,520,000 cubic yards. Maximum permitted capacity of the Landfill is 101,300,000 cubic yards. The Landfill encompasses a total 498 acres, of which 408 acres are designated for waste disposal. The projected closure date of the Landfill is April 1, 2033.18 Solid waste collection and transport services within the City are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. To establish a potential maximum Project impact scenario, a baseline solid waste generation planning factor of 12.23 lbs./household/day has been utilized in this analysis. In this regard, a range of residential waste generation planning factors and rates are published by CalRecycle.19 18 CalRecycle.'Solid waste facility listing/details: Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055)" CalRecycle. 2017. Web. June 17. 2017. tg CalRecycle. "Residential developments: Estimated solid waste generation rates." CalRecycle. Web. June 17, 2017 Rev. 412012 E1—E4 Pg 167 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 80 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Pa1on0afly SlgnILess lh at Than No Significant Impact Mitlgallon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact The rate of 12.23 lbs./household/day employed here represents the most recent and upper end single-family residential waste generation rate within the range of estimates identified by CalRecycle. At a generation rate of 12.23 lbs./household/day, at full occupancy the 20 dwelling units proposed by the Project would generate approximately 245 pounds (0.12 tons) of solid waste per day. This represents 0.0016 percent (0.000016) of the Mid -Valley Landfill (Landfill) maximum allowable daily throughput of 7,500 tons. On a yearly basis, the Project would generate approximately 112 cubic yards of solid waste '20 or approximately 0.00017 percent (0.0000017) of the Landfill remaining capacity of 67,520,000 yards. Assuming the above waste generation rate (12.23 lbs./household/day), the Project's incremental solid waste management demands would not be substantial in the context of the Landfill's allowed daily throughput, or in relation to the Landfill's available capacity. Moreover, the Project land uses and development intensities are consistent with that anticipated under the City General Plan. The solid waste increment generated by the Project is reflected in the General Plan EIR determination that solid waste management impacts resulting from buildout of the City would be less -than -significant (General Plan EIR, p. 4.17-22). Additionally, consistent with Section 5.408 "Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling" of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), as adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a minimum of 50 percent of the Project's nonhazardous construction and demolition waste would be recycled or salvaged for reuse. To these ends, a Project Construction Waste Management Plan would be prepared consistent with Section 5.408.1.1 of the CALGreen Code. These measures would collectively reduce Project 20 CalRecycle. "Calculations: Construction and demolition and inert debris (CDI)." CalRecycle. Web. June 17, 2017. Weight of household trash is estimated at 800 lbs./cubic yard. Rev. 4/2012 E 1—E4 Pg 168 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 81 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Poten6aliy Significant wth Less Than No Signifiwni Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Incoryorated Impact construction waste and would act to reduce demands on solid waste management resources. Based on the preceding, Project -generated solid waste can be accommodated at the receiving Mid -Valley Landfill; and there is available throughput capacity to serve the Project and other customers. Solid waste diversion achieved pursuant to existing regulations would further reduce potential Project impacts affecting area landfills. The Project would implement a Construction and Demolition (C&D) program further reducing potential Project solid waste management impacts. On this basis, the potential for Project solid waste to exceed the permitted capacity of receiving landfills is less -than -significant. g) Less -Than -Significant Impact. The City has implemented programs to ensure compliance with statewide solid waste source reduction targets of 50 percent or more. The Project would comply with applicable city and state waste diversion and recycling mandates. Moreover, the Project would implement conventional urban residential uses and would not establish uses or activities that would not or could not comply with local, State and federal solid waste management regulations. All solid waste generated by the Project would be collected and disposed of as part of the City's municipal waste stream. In this latter regard, solid waste management services are provided "throughout the City including collection and transfer of refuse, greenwaste, and bulky items. Recycling services are also provided. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste is considered less -than -significant. Sources: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000061027 (BonTerra Consulting) February 16, 2010; Cal Recycle; 2015 Cucamonga Valley Water District Urban Water Management Plan; Preliminary Plans for the Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project. 04MIJ'41iFa El —E4 Pg 169 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 82 SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00485 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Lesssignlriwnl Than No Impact Mltlgadon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 19. 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) Less -Than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Certain biological resources described at Initial Study Checklist Item 4. Biological Resources may be adversely affected by the Project. Additionally, as yet unknown cultural resources may exist within the Project area. This IS/MND incorporates mitigation that reduces potential biological resources impacts and potential cultural resources impacts to levels that would be less -than -significant. b) Less -Than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As substantiated herein, with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, the Project would not result in potentially significant and unmitigable impacts, nor would any environmental impacts of the Project be cumulatively considerable. c) Less -Than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As substantiated herein, the Project would not cause or result in potentially significant and unmitigable Rev. 4/2012 E1—E4 Pg170 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project SUBTT20080, DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 83 DRC2017-00131. DRC2017-00485 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ; sW� sv NCati M*ga w S�gri6canl In1; Xt I�ggpptXeE Impa[I environmental effects, and would therefore not result in potentially adverse effects to human beings. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION 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 environmental effects would occur. Applicant's Signature: Print Name and Title: Rev. 4/2012 Date: a/1811+ E1—E4Pg171 Part III: Mitigation Monitoring Program E1-E4 Pg172 wayCity of Rancho . . MITIGATION w ,. Project File No.: SUBTT20080 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 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. 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 Director, 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. 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 E 1—E4 Pg 173 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City stays 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. 4. 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. 7. 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 Director prior to the issuance of building permits. E 1—E4 Pg 174 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTf20080) Table 111.1 Mitigation Monitoring Program Initial StudyPart III Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency liming of Method of Date Verified/ Sanctions for Non - Monitoring ' erifc ation Verification Initials Compliance Aesthetics - - "_ e No mitigation is necessary. Agricultural Resources No mitigation Is necessary. Air Quality AQ-1 During grading and site preparation phases BO C During A q of construction, the work area shall be watered a grading and minimum of two times per day. site preparation. Biological Resources 8/0-1 Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If PD B/C Surveytobe A/D 214 possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be completed scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is prior to the outside the general avian nesting season. This first grading would ensure that no active nests would be permit. disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If Biological vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting resources season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly monitoring surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the during site presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist preparation. (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. Page 3 E1-E4 Pg175 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (Initial Study Part III) Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing of Method of Date Verified/ Sanctions for Non - Monitoring Verification Verification Initials Compliance 'Culturalrrribal Resources -- CR-1 The removal of historic materials or PD C Throughout A 3/4 alteration of features that characterize the activities that residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of would affect materials shall be made in -kind. the "Phelps' residence. CR-2 Distinctive features, finishes, and PD C Throughout A 3/4 construction techniques or examples of activities that craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall would affect be preserved and/or repaired/replaced in -kind. the "Phelps" residence. CR-3 Any deteriorated historic features shall be PD C Throughout AID 314 repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity activities that of deterioration requires replacement of a would affect character -defining feature, the new feature shall the "Phelps" match the old in design, color, texture, and other residence. visual qualities and, where possible, ,materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. CR-4 Chemical or physical treatments, if PD C Throughout A 314 appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest activities that means possible. Treatments that cause damage to would affect historic materials shall not be used. the "Phelps" residence. CR-5 The design plans and elevations for the PD C Prior to. C 2 new detached garage associated with the historic- issuance of period residence should include a gable roof and building siding that is similar in appearance to the house pennit(s) for and must be reviewed and approved by City staff the'Phelps" prior to issuance of building permits. residence detached garage. Page 4 E 1-E4 Pg 176 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (Initial Study Part III) Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency liming of Method of Date Verified) Sanctions for Non - Monitoring Verification Verification Initials Compliance CR-6 RemovaUrelocation of the residence shall PD C Throughout A 3/4 be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since. the activities that potential for subsurface cultural deposits is would affect moderately high in the area surrounding the house. the "Phelps" residence and its current building site. CR-7 In the event that Native American cultural PD C Throughout A. D 4 resources are discovered, all work in the immediate site - vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall disturbing cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting activities Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall behired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permittedhinvited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes their assessment, so as to provide Tribal Input. CR-8 If significant Native American historical PD C Throughout A, D 4 resources, as defined by CEOA, are discovered site - and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified disturbing archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural activities resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Page 5 E 1-E4 Pg 177 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III-1 Miti ation Monitoring Program Initial Study Part III Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing Timing of Method of iFltll Date Vere Sanctions for Non - Monitoring VerificationCompliance Verification Initials Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. Geology andSolis GEO-i A geotechnlcal engineer or geologist shall BO C During A 2/4 be on -site during all grading and foundation construction. construction to verify all observationsrfindings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. Greenhouse Gas Emissions _ No mitigation is necessary. Hazards and Waste Materials HAZ-1 Prior to any relocation, demolition, or PD B Prior to any D 2 destructive renovation activities Involving the on- relocation, site structures, the Applicant shall submit demolition or documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP destructive issues are not applicable to Project, or provide an renovation action plan that will be implemented in accordance activities with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to involving the abate any issues. on -site structures. HAZ-2 Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, SO C During A 4 confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be demolition or handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in destructive accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency renovation guidelines. activities. Page 6 E 1-E4 Pg 178 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III.1 Mitigation Monitorino Program (initial Studv Part III) Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing,of Method of Date Verified/ Sanctions for Non. Monitoring Verification Verification Initials Com (lance Hydrology and Water QualityNo mitigation is necessary. Land Use and Planning No miti ation is necessarv. Mineral Resources . No mitigation is necessary. _... _ Noise NOI-1 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-1] Prior to PD B Prior to C 2 the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall issuance of condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent the first to any developedloccupled noise sensitive land development uses by requiring applications to .submit a permit. Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the locationof the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: • Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screeninglbaflles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors • Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; • Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered). • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; Page 7 El-E4 Pg179 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria $ Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III-1 Mitt atlon MonitoringPro ram Initial Study Part III Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monilorin Frequency Timing io Verification Method of Verification Verified] Date Initials Initials Sanctions for Non- Com Rance • Modify equipment to reduce source noise levels by intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. The Plan shall demonstrate that received construction -source noise levels would not exceed the City's performance standard of 65 , dBA (Leq) at any occupied sensitive receptor land use. NOI-2 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4.12-2] BO C During A 4 Construction or grading noise levels shall not construction. exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. Page 8 E1-E4 Pg180 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Table III-1 Mitigation Monitorina Proaram !Initial Studv Part IIII Mitigation Measure Responsible for Frequency Timing of Method of Date Verifietll Sanctions for Non. Monitoring Verification Verification Initials compliance N0I-3 [Basis:, General Plan EIR MM 4.12-31 The PD B Prior to C 2 Plan required as part of the previous noise .issuance of mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12.1] the first shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to development the same hours specified for construction permit. equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday; 6:30 AM and'8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denoteany construction traffic haul route where - heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To .the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do .not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. NOI-4 [Basis: General Plan EIR MM 4A2-4] If a BO C During A 214 perimeter block wall is required for a project, the construction. wall shall be constructed as early as possible doling thefirst phase of construction. Po -ulation andiHousin , - i - -No mitigation is necessa ry ±public Services - Nomitigation is necessar . ',Recreation - e. No miti ation is necessary. •Transportation)Trdffior, No mitigation is necessary. Tribal Cultural Resources d., '_ `. - ._ `-- -' •. ,. No mitigation is necessary. .Utilities and Services stems•..-, No mitigation is necessary. Page 9 E1-E4 Pg181 Mitigation Monitoring Program Victoria & Hermosa Residential Project (SUBTT20080) Kev to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD— Community Development Director or designee A— With Each New Development A— Onsite Inspection 1—Withhold Recordation of Final Ma PD— Planning Director or designee 8— Prior to Construction B— 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/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 El -E4 Pg 182 RESOLUTION NO.17-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20080, A REQUEST FOR A 20-LOT SUBDIVISION ON A PARCEL OF ABOUT 5.43 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) DISTRICT (2.0 TO 4.0 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND VICTORIA STREET; APN: 1076-081-01. A. Recitals 1. Manning Homes filed an application for the issuance of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20080 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of November 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 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 November 8, 2017 including written and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; and b. The property has an area of 5.43 acres and is about 320 feet (east to west) by about 740 feet (north to south); and C. The property is currently improved with a 960-square foot house, an accessory structure and a garage as well as the remnants of a Christmas tree farm; and d. The property is bound on the north by single-family residential homes. The property is surrounded by streets (Teak Way, Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue) on the west, south and east side and beyond those streets are more single-family residential homes and a park to the east; and e. The zoning of the property and all the properties to the south, east and west of the subject property is Low (L) Residential District. A portion of the property to the east is zoned Open Space (OS); and E1—E4 Pg 183 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-95 SUBTT20080- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 2 f. The application is for the subdivision of 5.43 acres of land into twenty (20) lots for the purposes of developing single-family homes; and g. The lots are proposed to be between 7,382 and 11,294 square feet; and h. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site and the properties surrounding the subject property is Low Residential. A portion of land to the east is zoned Parks; and i. The related Design Review application, DRC2017-00129, proposes the construction of 19 single-family homes; and j. The related Variance application, DRC2017-00130, proposes to reduce the required minimum average lot size of 8,000 square feet to 7,977 square feet; and k. The related Minor Exception Review application, DRC2017-00131, proposes to increase the maximum height of the project perimeter's walls 1.5 feet up to 7.5 feet in height; and I. The related Landmark Designation application, DRC2017-00485, proposes to move the existing historic home to lot one and designate it as a historic landmark; and 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 design and layout of the subject tentative tract map will'be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project site is being subdivided for the development of residential lots which will be consistent with the proposed Low Residential General Plan Land Use Designation and the Low Residential (L) District. b. The site is physically suitable for the subdivision which will create twenty (20) residential lots. The project will include a vehicle access point off of Teak Way and will be designed to accommodate the level of traffic proposed by the development. C. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. Environmental studies were submitted and reviewed by staff. Staff concluded that there would not be any significant effect on the environment. d. The tentative tract map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed project is for the development of twenty (20) lots for residential development which generally do not include the use of hazardous materials. e. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Access to the property will be from existing public streets surrounding the project site and access to the individual future homes will be from a newly created public street which will run west to east on land that is currently a part of the subject property. E1—E4 Pg184 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-95 SUBTT20080- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 3 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 evidencethat 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's environmental consultant, Applied Planning, prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was peer reviewed by Placeworks, an independent environmental consultant under contract with the City. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Waste Materials, and Noise 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. 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 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 a request for a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) E1—E4 Pg185 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-95 SUBTT20080- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 4 located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01. Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) During grading and site preparation phases of construction, the work area shall be watered a minimum of two times per day. Biological 1) Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. Cultural Resources 1) The removal of historic materials or alteration of features that characterize the residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of materials shall be made in -kind. 2) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall be preserved and/or repaired/replaced in -kind. 3) Any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a character -defining feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. E1—E4 Pg186 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-95 SUBTT20080- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 5 4) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. 5) The design plans and elevations for the new detached garage associated with the historic period residence should include a gable roof and siding that is similar in appearance to the house and must be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 6) Removal/relocation of the residence shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house 7) In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes their assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. 8) If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI- qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. Geology and Soils 1) A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall be on -site during all grading and foundation construction to verify all observations/findings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. E1—E4 Pg187 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-95 SUBTT20080- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 6 Hazards and Waste Materials 1) Priorto any relocation, demolition, or destructive renovation activities involving the onsite structures, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP issues are not applicable to Project, or provide an action plan that will be implemented in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to abate any issues. 2) Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines. Noise 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and howthe noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: • Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screening/baffles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors; • Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; • Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered); • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; • Modify equipment to reduce source noise levels by intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. The Plan shall demonstrate that received construction -source noise levels would not exceed the City's performance standard of 65 dBA (Leq) at any occupied sensitive receptor land use. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected E1—E4Pg188 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-95 SUBTT20080- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 7 receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. 3) The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12.1 ] shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100, daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. 4) If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IAV 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: El—E4 Pg189 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-95 SUBTT20080- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 7 receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. 3) The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12.1] shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. 4) If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WA 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E 1—E4 Pg 190 Conditions of Approval $ Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s; are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are nol required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 4. 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. 5. 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, 6. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 7. 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 it effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 8. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather thar wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 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 the Development Code regulations. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us El—E4 Pg191 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 12. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 13. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 14. 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. 15. 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. 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. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 19. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 13 E1—E4 Pg192 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filinq, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. 1. Hermosa Avenue frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Secondary" standards as required and including: A. Protect or repair curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Remove existing drive approach that fronts Hermosa at the northerly portion of the site. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northwest corner of Victoria Street at Hermosa Avenue. 2. Victoria Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City " Collector" standards as required and including: A. Construct curb & gutter at 22 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide three (3) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast corner of Victoria Street at Teak Way. 3. Teak Way frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Dedicate right of way from centerline to property line that equals 30 feet and construct curb & gutter at 18 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide two (2) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 4. 'A' Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Provide five (5) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 2. An in -lieu fee as contribution to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities (telecom and electrical, except for 66 kV electrical or larger) on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of permits. The fee amount shall be one-half the City adopted amount times the length of the overhead utilities from the centerline of Victoria to the south northerly utility pole. 3. The poles on the west side of Hermosa frontage shall be undergrounded per resolution 87-96 Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRc.us Page 3 of 13 E 1—E4 Pg 193 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filinq, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 4. 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. 5. The following fees, per the Engineering Fee Schedule, will be assessed on the building permit: Drainage Transportation Library Animal Center Police Park 6. All easements for landscaping around the perimeter shall be HOA maintained. 7. Minimum ADA access around all poles that will not be removed along Hermosa shall be accounted for. If the minimum spacing around poles is not met, the existing wall shall be moved out of the interfering areas. Standard Conditions of Approval Printed: 10123/2017 v .CityofRC.us Page 4 of 13 E1—E4 Pg194 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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 latest ADA 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 w .cityofRcros Page 5 of 13 E1—E4 Pg195 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 10.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. 11. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 12. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be accordance with the City's street tree program. 13. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. at the back of sidewalk along Hermosa and Victoria. The portior along Hermosa and Victoria shall be vacated. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 installed per City Standards in The City right-of-way shall start of existing excess right-of-way Page 6 of 13 E1—E4 Pg196 Project#: SUBT720080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 14. Dedication shall be made of the street centerline): 39 total feet on Hermosa 28 total feet on Victoria 30 total feet on Teak Way 30 feet on A Street (60 total) *Reduced parkway sections HOA maintained areas. following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets (measured from on Hermosa and Victoria are to accommodate existing walls and new 15. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 16. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 17. 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. 18. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side -walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Notes: Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 19. 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: 10/23/2017 w .CityofRC.us El —E4 Pg 197 Page 7 of 13 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 23. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls. 28. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The new structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for new structures. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 13 El—E4 Pg198 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filinq, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Building and Safety Services Department Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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". 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 9. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 w .CityofRC.us E1—E4 Pg199 Page 9 of 13 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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". 13. 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". 14, 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. 15. 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: 10/23/2017 vnvw.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 13 E 1—E4 Pg200 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC201,7-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6868 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21.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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 ww .CltyofRC.uS Page 11 of 13 E1—E4 Pg201 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. PrinteE: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page'12 of 13 E1—E4 Pg202 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filinq, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Gradinq Section Standard Conditions of Approval 31. 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). 32. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 33. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R's and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 73 of 13 El —E4 Pg 203 RESOLUTION NO.17-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF 19 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 20-LOT SUBDIVISION OF ABOUT 5.43 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) DISTRICT (2.0 TO 4.0 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND VICTORIA STREET; APN: 1076- 081-01 A. Recitals 1. Manning Homes filed an application forthe issuance of Design review DRC2017-00129 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 8th day of November 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 November 8, 2017 including written and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; and b. The property has an area of 5.43 acres and is about 320 feet (east to west) by about 740 feet (north to south); and C. The property is currently improved with a 960-square foot house, an accessory structure and a garage as well as the remnants of a Christmas tree farm; and d. The property is bound on the north by single family residential homes. The property is surrounded by streets (Teak Way, Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue) on the west, south and east side and beyond those streets are more single-family residential homes and a park to the east; and E1—E4 Pg204 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 2 e. The zoning of the property and all the properties to the south, east and west of the subject property is Low (L) Residential District. A portion of the property to the east is zoned Open Space (OS); and f. The Design Review application, DRC2017-00129, proposes the construction of 19 single-family homes; and g. The Low Residential General Plan designation allows between 2.0 and 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The project is proposing 20 units on 5.43 acres which averages to 3.7 units per acre. The project is proposed to meet density requirements; and h. There are three plan types and four elevation styles proposed. In addition to the different plan types and elevation styles, there are 10 different color schemes to avoid repetition on the new street. The homes will have a Spanish, California Ranch or Tuscan architectural design theme. The proposed homes range in size from 2,000 square feet to 3,044 square feet and about half of the lots also have proposed patios; and i. Each single-family residence is required to have two enclosed parking spaces with an interior dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet. The applicant is proposing a two -car garage with the required dimensions for every proposed home. The applicant is also proposing to build a new detached garage for the existing historical home. All required parking standards are proposed to be met; and j. The project is proposing five one-story homes which meets the minimum of 25 percent for a project. The corner houses at the entry of the new street are one story residences in accordance with the Planning Commission policy that corner lots be one story; and k. Landscaping is required on each lot and the minimum landscaping is provided. Landscaping is also proposed along the exterior perimeter walls which will reduce the massing of the walls. The project is proposed to have a home owner's association which will provide the funds to maintain the exterior landscaping; and I. The applicant is proposing a new retaining wall on the north and south sides of the project as well as the side of lot 20 adjacent to Teak Way. The walls will be decorative slump stone with river rock columns with concrete caps; and m. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site and the properties surrounding the subject property is Low Residential. A portion of land to the east is General Plan Land Use designation Parks; and n. The related Tentative Tract Map application, SUBTT20080, proposes 20 single- family lots; and o. The related Variance application, DRC2017-00130, proposes to reduce the required minimum average lot size of 8,000 square feet to 7,977 square feet; and p. The related Minor Exception Review application, DRC2017-00131, proposes to increase the maximum height of the project perimeter's walls 1.5 feet up to 7.5 feet in height; and E1—E4 Pg205 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 3 q. The related Landmark Designation application, DRC2017-00485, proposes to move the existing historic home to lot one and designate it as a historic landmark; and 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 development is in accord with the General Plan. The proposal is to construct 19 single-family residences which is consistent with the underlying General Plan designation of Low Residential (2.0-4.0 units per acre). b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the surrounding area. The land use that would be associated with this project is consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and all properties surrounding the subject property is Low Residential (L) with a portion of the land to the east zoned Open Space (OS). The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the area in which it is located. C. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. d. The proposed development, 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 project site has one single family home on the property; the proposed land use is consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and all the surrounding properties is Low (L) Residential District with the exception of the park to the east which is zoned Open Space (OS). 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's environmental consultant, Applied Planning, prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was peer reviewed by Placeworks, an independent environmental consultant under contract with the City. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Waste Materials, and Noise 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 El—E4 Pg206 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 17-96 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 4 Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. 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 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 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 a request to construct 19 single family residences in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076- 081-01. Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) During grading and site preparation phases of construction, the work area shall be watered a minimum of two times per day. Biological 1) Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. E1—E4 Pg207 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-96 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 5 If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. Cultural Resources 1) The removal of historic materials or alteration of features that characterize the residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of materials shall be made in -kind. 2) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall be preserved and/or repaired/replaced in -kind. 3) Any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a character - defining feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 4) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. 5) The design plans and elevations for the new detached garage associated with the historic period residence should include a gable roof and siding that is similar in appearance to the house and must be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 6) Removal/relocation of the residence shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house 7) In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the 'buffered area may continue during this E1—E4 Pg208 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-96 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 6 assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes their assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. 8) If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SO] -qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. Geology and Soils 1) A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall be on -site during all grading and foundation construction to verify all observations/findings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. Hazards and Waste Materials 1) Prior to any relocation, demolition, or destructive renovation activities involving the onsite structures, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP issues are not applicable to Project, or provide an action plan that will be implemented in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to abate any issues. 2) Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines. Noise 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and howthe noise from this equipmentwould be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: • Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screening/baffles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors; E1—E4 Pg209 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-96 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 7 • Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; • Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered); • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; • Modify equipment to reduce source noise levels by intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. The Plan shall demonstrate that received construction -source noise levels would not exceed the City's performance standard of 65 dBA (Leq) at any occupied sensitive receptor land use. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. 3) The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12.1] shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. 4) The perimeter block wall is required for the project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA El—E4 Pg210 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-96 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00129- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 8 M 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: El—E4 Pg217 Conditions of Approval tyT Y SX.• J M1RANC0110 r4 Community Development Department G'UOe1 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filino. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department' Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 7. 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. 8. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 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 the Development Code regulations. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 E1—E4 Pg212 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filino. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 12. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 13. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 14. 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. 15. 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. 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. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as. not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 19. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Printed: 10/23/2017 w .CityofRc.us Page 2 of 13 Ell—E4 Pg213 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filina. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. 1. Hermosa Avenue frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Secondary" standards as required and including: A. Protect or repair curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Remove existing drive approach that fronts Hermosa at the northerly portion of the site. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northwest corner of Victoria Street at Hermosa Avenue. 2. Victoria Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City " Collector" standards as required and including: A. Construct curb & gutter at 22 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide three (3) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast corner of Victoria Street at Teak Way. 3. Teak Way frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Dedicate right of way from centerline to property line that equals 30 feet and construct curb & gutter at 18 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide two (2) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 4. 'A' Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Provide five (5) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 2. An in -lieu fee as contribution to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities (telecom and electrical, except for 66 kV electrical or larger) on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of permits. The fee amount shall be one-half the City adopted amount times the length of the overhead utilities from the centerline of Victoria to the south northerly utility pole. 3. The poles on the west side of Hermosa frontage shall be undergrounded per resolution 87-96 www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 3 of 13 E1—E4 Pg214 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 4. 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. 5. The following fees, per the Engineering Fee Schedule, will be assessed on the building permit: Drainage Transportation Library Animal Center Police Park B. All easements for landscaping around the perimeter shall be HOA maintained. 7. Minimum ADA access around all poles that will not be removed along Hermosa shall be accounted for. If the minimum spacing around poles is not met, the existing wall shall be moved out of the interfering areas. Standard Conditions of Approval Printed: 10/23/2017 mw.CityofRC.us E1—E4 Pg215 Page 4 of'13 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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 latest ADA 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. Printed: 10/23l2017 �w�w.CityorRC.us Page 5 of 13 El—E4 Pg216 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 10.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. 11. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 12. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be accordance with the City's street tree program. 13. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. at the back of sidewalk along Hermosa and Victoria. The portior along Hermosa and Victoria shall be vacated. installed per City Standards in The City right-of-way shall start of existing excess right-of-way ww v.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 E1—E4 Pg217 Page 6 of 13 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 14. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 39 total feet on Hermosa 28 total feet on Victoria 30 total feet on Teak Way 30 feet on A Street (60 total) *Reduced parkway sections on Hermosa and Victoria are to accommodate existing walls and new HOA maintained areas. 15. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 16. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 17. 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. 18. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side -walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Notes: Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 19. 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: 10/2312017 www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 13 E1—E4 Pg218 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 23. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls. 28. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Building and Safety Services Department Please he advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The new structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for new structures. Printed: 10/23/2017 wa .CityofRC.us Page 8 of 13 E1—E4 Pg219 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: Project Type: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filino. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Building and Safety Services Department Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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". 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 9. 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. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 9 of 13 E1—E4 Pg220 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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". 13. 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". 14. 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. 15. 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. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 10 of 13 El—E4 Pg221 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21.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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. w .CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 11 of 13 E1—E4 Pg222 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show im each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 w .CltyofRC.uS Page 12 of 13 E1—E4 Pg223 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions. of Approval 31. 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). 32. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 33. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R's and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. Printed:www.CityofRC.us.10/23/2017 Page 13 of 13 E1—E4 Pg224 RESOLUTION NO.17-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. DRC2017-00130 TO REDUCE THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE FROM 8,000 SQUARE FEET TO 7,977 SQUARE FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 20- LOT SUBDIVISION OF ABOUT 5.43 ACRES IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) DISTRICT (2.0 TO 4.0 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND VICTORIA STREET; APN: 1076-081-01. 1. Manning Homes filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. DRC2017-00130 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of November 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 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 November 8, 2017 including written and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; and b. The property has an area of 5.43 acres and is about 320 feet (east to west) by about 740 feet (north to south); and C. The property is currently improved with a 960-square foot house, an accessory structure and a garage as well as the remnants of a Christmas tree farm; and d. The property is bound on the north by single family residential homes. The property is surrounded by streets (Teak Way, Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue) on the west, south and east side and beyond those streets are more single-family residential homes and a park to the east; and E1—E4 Pg225 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-97 VARIANCE DRC2017-00130- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 2 e. The zoning of the property and all the properties to the south, east and west of the subject property is Low (L) Residential District. A portion of the property to the east is zoned Open Space (OS); and f. The Variance application, DRC2017-00130 is forthe reduction of minimum average lot size from 8,000 square feet to 7,977 square feet; and g. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site and the properties surrounding the subject property is Low Residential. A portion of land to the east is zoned Parks; and h. The related Tentative Tract Map application, SUBTT20080, proposes 20 single- family lots; and i. The related Design Review application, DRC2017-00129, proposes the construction of 19 single-family homes; and j. The related Minor Exception Review application, DRC2017-00131, proposes to increase the maximum height of the project perimeter's walls 1.5 feet up to 7.5 feet in height; and k. The related Landmark Designation application, DRC2017-00485, proposes to move the existing historic home to lot one and designate it as a historic landmark; and 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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. The reduction in the required average lot size is necessary due to the additional required lot needed to preserve the historic house. Without providing an additional lot for the historic house, the applicant would only need 19 lots and would have enough square footage to exceed the average lot size requirement. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. The applicant has agreed to preserve the existing home on the subject property but this is requiring that the applicant use a portion of the land to create an extra plot of land for this home. When the surrounding lot or lots were proposed, this was not a limitation. Furthermore, the proposed lots are larger than the majority of the surrounding lots in the same area. The proposed lots are larger than all of the lots to the west and the south of the subject property. C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The project site is within the Low (L) District which requires that lots have a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and an average lot size of 8,000 square feet. Currently, the lots are proposed to range between 7,382 square feet and 11,294 square feet with an average lot size of 7,977 square feet. Without the average lot size reduction of 23 square feet, the project would need to be redesigned, reducing the number of lots and subsequently increasing the size of the remaining lots to be much larger than the required minimum lot sizes in the zoning district and the existing lots in the E1—E4 Pg226 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-97 VARIANCE DRC2017-00130- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 3 surrounding area. Not approving the Variance would deprive the applicant of development rights enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. It is not uncommon to grant a Variance to reduce a required average lot size within a subdivision when the lots are otherwise in compliance, the reduction is minimal and there are circumstances that preclude the project from complying. The proposed Variance for a reduction in the required average lot size within the subdivision, will not constitute a grant of special privilege as existing site conditions, including providing a lot for the existing historical home, limit alternative site designs without reducing the number of lots. e. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The reduction in the required average lot size within the proposed 20-lot subdivision will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, as the reduction will be in keeping with other subdivisions in the surrounding area and with the intent of the Low (L) District. Additionally, staff has prepared an environmental review for the proposed project and has determined that with the inclusion of mitigation measures the project will have a less than significant impact on the environment. 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's environmental consultant, Applied Planning, prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was peer reviewed by Placeworks, an independent environmental consultant under contract with the City. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Waste Materials, and Noise 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 compliancewith, the mitigation measures for the project. 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. E1—E4 Pg227 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-97 VARIANCE DRC2017-00130- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 4 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 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 a request to reduce the average lot size from 8,000 square feet to 7,977 square feet in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres in the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01. Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) During grading and site preparation phases of construction, the work area shall be watered a minimum of two times per day. Biological 1) Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that E1—E4 Pg228 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-97 VARIANCE DRC2017-00130- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 5 any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. Cultural Resources 1) The removal of historic materials or alteration of features that characterize the residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of materials shall be made in -kind. 2) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall be preserved and/or repaired/replaced in -kind. 3) Any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a character - defining feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 4) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. 5) The design plans and elevations for the new detached garage associated with the historic period residence should include a gable roof and siding that is similar in appearance to the house and must be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 6) Removal/relocation of the residence shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house 7) In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes their assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. 8) If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. E1—E4 Pg229 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-97 VARIANCE DRC2017-00130- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 6 a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. Geology and Soils 1) A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall be on -site during all grading and foundation construction to verify all observations/findings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. Hazards and Waste Materials 1) Prior to any relocation, demolition, or destructive renovation activities involving the onsite structures, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP issues are not applicable to Project, or provide an action plan that will be implemented in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to abate any issues. 2) Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines. Noise 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: • Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screening/baffles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors; • Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; • Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered); • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; E1—E4 Pg230 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-97 VARIANCE DRC2017-00130- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 7 Modify equipment to reduce source noise levels by intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. The Plan shall demonstrate that received construction -source noise levels would not exceed the City's performance standard of 65 dBA (Leq) at any occupied sensitive receptor land use. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. 3) The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12.1] shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. 4) If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -53 ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary E1—E4 Pg231 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-97 VARIANCE DRC2017-00130- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 8 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E1—E4 Pg232 Conditions of Approval $anGxo Community Development Department �ucn�lorlcn Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filinq, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 7. 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. 8. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 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 the Development Code regulations. Printed: 10/23/2017 v .CityofRC.us El—E4 Pg233 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 12. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 13. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 14. 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. 15. 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. 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. IS.A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 19. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Engineering Services Department Please he advised of the following Special Conditions v .CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 2 of 13 E1—E4 Pg234 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT; Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. 1. Hermosa Avenue frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Secondary" standards as required and including: A. Protect or repair curb &gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Remove existing drive approach that fronts Hermosa at the northerly portion of the site. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northwest corner of Victoria Street at Hermosa Avenue. 2. Victoria Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City " Collector" standards as required and including: A. Construct curb & gutter at 22 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide three (3) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast corner of Victoria Street at Teak Way. 3. Teak Way frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Dedicate right of way from centerline to property line that equals 30 feet and construct curb & gutter at 18 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide two (2) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 4. 'A' Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Provide five (5) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 2. An in -lieu fee as contribution to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities (telecom and electrical, except for 66 kV electrical or larger) on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of permits. The fee amount shall be one-half the City adopted amount times the length of the overhead utilities from the centerline of Victoria to the south northerly utility pole. 3. The poles on the west side of Hermosa frontage shall be undergrounded per resolution 87-96 www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 3 of 13 El—E4 Pg235 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 4. 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. 5. The following fees, per the Engineering Fee Schedule, will be assessed on the building permit: Drainage Transportation Library Animal Center Police Park 6. All easements for landscaping around the perimeter shall be HOA maintained. 7. Minimum ADA access around all poles that will not be removed along Hermosa shall be accounted for. If the minimum spacing around poles is not met, the existing wall shall be moved out of the interfering areas. Standard Conditions of Approval Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 13 El—E4 Pg236 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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 latest ADA 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. w .CityofRC.us 'Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 5 of 13 E1—E4 Pg237 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 10.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. 11. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 12. 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. 13. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. The City right-of-way shall start at the back of sidewalk along Hermosa and Victoria. The portion of existing excess right-of-way along Hermosa and Victoria shall be vacated. Pfinled: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page fi of 13 El—E4 Pg238 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 14. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 39 total feet on Hermosa 28 total feet on Victoria 30 total feet on Teak Way 30 feet on A Street (60 total) *Reduced parkway sections on Hermosa and Victoria are to accommodate existing walls and new HOA maintained areas. 15. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 16. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 17. 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. 18. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side -walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Notes: Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 19. 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. vnvw.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 page 7 of 13 E1—E4 Pg239 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Location: Project Type: Hermosa, LLC 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filina. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 23. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls. 28. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The new structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for new structures. Pnnted: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page a of 13 E1—E4 Pg240 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Building and Safety Services Department Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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". 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 9. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us El—E4 Pg241 Page 9 of 13 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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". 13. 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 14. 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. 15. 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: 10/2312017 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 13 E1—E4 Pg242 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21.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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 ww .CityofRC.us Page 11 of 13 E1—E4 Pg243 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Location: Project Type: Hermosa, LLC 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Gradinq Section Standard Conditions of Approval 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 w .CityofRC.us Page 12 of 13 E1—E4 Pg244 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 31. 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). 32. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 33. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan, Said CC&R's and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 13 of 13 E1—E4 Pg245 RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION NO. DRC2017-00131 TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT FROM 6 FEET TO A MAXIMUM OF 7.5 FEET FOR A PERIMETER WALL THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 20-LOT SUBDIVISION OF ABOUT 5.43 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) DISTRICT (2.0 TO 4.0 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSAAVENUE AND VICTORIA STREET: APN: 1076-081-01. A. Recitals. 1. Manning Homes filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. DRC2017-00130 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of November 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. 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 November 8, 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 located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; and b. The property has an area of 5.43 acres and is about 320 feet (east to west) by about 740 feet (north to south); and C. The property is currently improved with a 960-square foot house, an accessory structure and a garage as well as the remnants of a Christmas tree farm; and d. The property is bound on the north by single-family residential homes. The property is surrounded by streets (Teak Way, Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue) on the west, south and east side and beyond those streets are more single-family residential homes and a park to the east; and E1—E4 Pg246 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00131- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 2 e. The zoning of the property and all the properties to the south, east and west of the subject property is Low (L) Residential District. A portion of the property to the east is zoned Open Space (OS); and f. The Minor Exception application, DRC2017-00131 is to increase the maximum height of the project's perimeter walls from 6 feet to 7.5 feet; and g. A 5-foot tall river rock retaining wall currently exists along Hermosa Avenue and a small portion of Victoria Street. The applicant proposes to keep the river rock wall along Hermosa Avenue and construct another decorative block wall behind the existing river rock wall to screen the rear yards of the project perimeter; and h. The applicant is proposing to demolish approximately 20 feet of the river rock wall along the north side of Victoria Street (south side of the project). The applicant is proposing a new retaining wall on the north and south sides of the project as well as the side of Lot 20 adjacent to Teak Way. The walls will be decorative slump stone with river rock columns with concrete caps; and i. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site and the properties surrounding the subject property is Low Residential. A portion of land to the east is zoned Parks; and j. The related Tentative Tract Map application, SUBTT20080, proposes 20 single- family lots; and k. The related Design Review application, DRC2017-00129, proposes the construction of 19 single-family homes; and I. The related Variance application, DRC2017-00130, proposes to reduce the required minimum average lot size of 8,000 square feet to 7,977 square feet; and M. The related Landmark Designation application, DRC2017-00485, proposes to move the existing historic home to lot one and designate it as a historic landmark; and 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 Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan designation of the project site is Low Residential and the zoning of the property is Low Residential (L) District. The Minor Exception to increase the wall height from a maximum of 6 feet to 7.5 feet does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project site. b. The Minor Exception is compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The Minor Exception will not result in proposed larger homes, an increase in lot coverage, an increase in density, or adjustments to the physical lot area of the proposed subject lots. Allowing the extra 1.5 feet beyond the maximum of a 6-foot tall wall will allow the rear yards of the residential lots to have screening and security that they would not otherwise have due to the E1—E4 Pg247 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00131- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 3 grade difference existing between the subject properties and the adjacent properties. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing tiered shrubs and 24 inch boxed trees in front of the walls to create screening from the surrounding streets of Victoria Street and Hermosa Avenue. Lastly, the walls are proposed to be aesthetically pleasing with colored slump stone block with wall cap and river rock pilasters, which will be compatible with the walls in the area. C. The proposed exception to the specific development standard is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and to accommodate unique site conditions. There is approximately 16 vertical feet of grade difference between the north and south edges of the property. The proposed 7.5-foot-tall walls will be located generally where there are grade differences that warrant retaining walls. The walls are proposed along the north, south and west project perimeter. d. The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct walls that will provide adequate property screening/security and usable yard area, and will be similar to other walls that have been approved for construction within the city with similar vertical grade differences. Many residential projects abutting the Pacific Electric trail or in the hillside have commonly been granted minor exceptions for maximum wall height due to vertical grade differences. 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 thatthe 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 ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the applicant's environmental consultant, Applied Planning, prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was peer reviewed by Placeworks, an independent environmental consultant under contract with the City. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Waste Materials, and Noise 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. 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. E1—E4 Pg248 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00131- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 4 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 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 a request to increase the maximum wall heightfrom 6 feet to a maximum of 7.5 feet for a perimeter wall that will be constructed in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43 acres of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01. Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) During grading and site preparation phases of construction, the work area shall be watered a minimum of two times per day. Biological 1) Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is E1—E4 Pg249 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00131- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 5 concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed. Cultural Resources 1) The removal of historic materials or alteration of features that characterize the residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of materials shall be made in -kind. 2) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall be preserved and/or repaired/replaced in -kind. 3) Any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a character - defining feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 4) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. 5) The design plans and elevations for the new detached garage associated with the historic period residence should include a gable roof and siding that is similar in appearance to the house and must be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 6) Removal/relocation of the residence shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, since the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is moderately high in the area surrounding the house 7) In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes their assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. 8) If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural resource Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which E1—E4 Pg250 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00131- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 6 shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. a. All in -field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Participant(s). b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project. Geology and Soils 1) A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall be on -site during all grading and foundation construction to verify all observations/findings of the Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary. Hazards and Waste Materials 1) Prior to any relocation, demolition, or destructive renovation activities involving the onsite structures, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City that ACMs and LBP issues are not applicable to Project, or provide an action plan that will be implemented in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to abate any issues. 2) Should ACMs or LBP be identified on -site, confirmed and suspected ACMs or LBP shall be handled and disposed of by licensed contractors in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines. Noise 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a Construction -Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the Project. Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would not be limited to: • Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screening/baffles between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors; • Use of electrically -powered construction equipment; • Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries; • Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident construction activity (neither underpowered or overpowered); E1—E4 Pg251 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00131- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 7 • Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is typically quieter than older models; • Modify equipment to reduce source noise levels by intake and exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating panels around engines. The Plan shall demonstrate that received construction -source noise levels would not exceed the City's performance standard of 65 dBA (Leq) at any occupied sensitive receptor land use. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If monitored constructions -source noise levels at affected receptors exceed the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. 3) The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure [Mitigation Measure 4.12.1] shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The Plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. 4) A perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WV ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary E1—E4 Pg252 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00131- MANNING HOMES NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Page 8 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E1—E4 Pg253 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 7. 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. 8. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 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 the Development Code regulations. ' www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 E1—E4 Pg254 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 12. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 13. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 14. 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. 15. 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. 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. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 19. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us E1—E4 Pg255 Page 2 of 13 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. 1. Hermosa Avenue frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Secondary' standards as required and including: A. Protect or repair curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Remove existing drive approach that fronts Hermosa at the northerly portion of the site. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northwest corner of Victoria Street at Hermosa Avenue. 2. Victoria Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City " Collector" standards as required and including: A. Construct curb & gutter at 22 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide three (3) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast corner of Victoria Street at Teak Way. 3. Teak Way frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Dedicate right of way from centerline to property line that equals 30 feet and construct curb & gutter at 18 feet from centerline to curb face. B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. C. Provide two (2) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at'A' Street. 4. 'A' Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required and including: A. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Provide five (5) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at 'A' Street. 2. An in -lieu fee as contribution to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities (telecom and electrical, except for 66 kV electrical or larger) on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of permits. The fee amount shall be one-half the City adopted amount times the length of the overhead utilities from the centerline of Victoria to the south northerly utility pole. 3. The poles on the west side of Hermosa frontage shall be undergrounded per resolution 87-96 w .Cityo(RC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 E1—E4 Pg256 Page 3 of 13 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 4. 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. 5. The following fees, per the Engineering Fee Schedule, will be assessed on the building permit: Drainage Transportation Library Animal Center Police Park 6. All easements for landscaping around the perimeter shall be HOA maintained. 7. Minimum ADA access around all poles that will not be removed along Hermosa shall be accounted for. If the minimum spacing around poles is not met, the existing wall shall be moved out of the interfering areas. Standard Conditions of Approval Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us page 4 of 73 E1—E4 Pg257 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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 interconhect 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 latest ADA 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 13 E1—E4 Pg258 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 10.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. II.All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 12. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be accordance with the City's street tree program. 13. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. at the back of sidewalk along Hermosa and Victoria. The portior along Hermosa and Victoria shall be vacated. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us installed per City Standards in The City right-of-way shall start of existing excess right-of-way Page 6 of 13 E1—E4 Pg259 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 14. Dedication shall be made of the street centerline): 39 total feet on Hermosa 28 total feet on Victoria 30 total feet on Teak Way 30 feet on A Street (60 total) *Reduced parkway sections HOA maintained areas. following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets (measured from on Hermosa and Victoria are to accommodate existing walls and new 15. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 16. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 17. 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. 18. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side -walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Notes: Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 19. 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: 10/23/2017 w .CityofRC.us Page 7 of 13 El—E4 Pg260 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 23. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls. 28. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The new structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for new structures. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 13 E1—E4 Pg261 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filino. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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". 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 9. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 v .CityolRC.us E1—E4 Pg262 Page 9 of 13 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filina. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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". 13. 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". 14. 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. 15. 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. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 10 of 13 E 1—E4 Pg263 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21.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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CityofRC.us page 11 of 13 E1—E4 Pg264 Project #: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. Printed: 10/23/2017 www.CltyofRC.us Page 12 of 13 E1—E4 Pg265 Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305, DRC2017-00485 Project Name: Hermosa, LLC Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section .Standard Conditions of Approval 31. 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). 32. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 33. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R's and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/23/2017 Page 13 of 13 E1—E4 Pg266 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 8, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00755- GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. - A request to allow for a one (1) year time extension of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT17444) related to a 13-unit condominium development on 2.17 acres of land in the Low Medium (LM) District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Archibald Avenue and 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street - APN: 0202-131-27, 61 and 62. On October 10 2007, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to the projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a one (1) year Time Extension DRC2017- 00755, through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a one (1) year time extension to a previously approved tentative tract map (SUBTT17444) in order to allow the City to complete storm drain improvements on 19th Street. Storm water from 19th Street currently flows through the adjacent mobile home park and across the project site to an inlet on Archibald Avenue. The storm drain system improvements will eliminate the need for a current Engineering Department condition of approval requiring the construction of an enlarged on -site storm drain system to capture the existing storm water runoff from the adjacent mobile home park. The City storm drain project is scheduled to commence in early 2018. On October 10, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 and Design Review DRC2005-00250 for the subdivision and design review of a 2.17-acre parcel of land for condominium purposes for the development of 13 condominiums. That approval included a related Development District Amendment (DRC2005-00523), to change the Development District Map from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential, to bring the site into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. The Design Review and the related subdivision were reviewed by the Grading and Technical Review Committees on February 6, 2007 and by the Design Review Committee on July 3, 2007. The City Council approved the related Development District Amendment (DRC2005- 00523) on November 7, 2007. Approval of Development Review DRC2005-00250 expired on October 10, 2012. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a new application for the design review of the 13 units (DRC2013-00583), which was reviewed by the Design and Technical Review Committees on June 3, 2014 and approved by the E5—Pg 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00755— GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. November 8, 2017 Page 2 Planning Commission on February 11, 2015. Design Review approval of DRC2013-00583 will expire on February 11, 2020. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the west side of Archibald Avenue and north of Monte Vista Street, adjacent to the Chaparral Heights Mobile Home Park. The project site is covered with ornamental grasses and multiple trees and has an open storm drain running through the center of the site. The property is within the Low Medium (LM) District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre). To the north and west is the Chaparral Heights mobile home park in the Low Medium (LM) District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre); to the east is single-family development in the Low Medium District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre); and, to the south is single-family development in the Medium (M) District (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre). A. Proiect Density: 6 dwelling units per acre (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre permitted) Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Medium Low Medium (LM) North Mobile Home Park Low Medium Low Medium (LM) South Single -Family Residences Medium Medium (M) East Single -Family Residences Low Medium Low Medium (LM) West Mobile Home Park Low Medium Low Medium (LM) ANALYSIS: A. Prior Approvals and Automatic Extensions: This time extension application is a request to extend the approval period of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 for one (1) year. The original approval of SUBTT17444 was on October 10, 2007, for a time period of three (3) years. The original expiration date was on October 10, 2010. However, subsequent to approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444, the State Legislature passed a series of Assembly/Senate Bills automatically extending the approval period of various active tentative maps throughout the State. State Bill (SB) 1185 extended the approval period 1-year to October 10, 2011; Assembly Bill (AB) 333 extended the approval period 2-years to October 10, 2013; Assembly Bill (AB) 208 extended the approval period 2-years to October 10, 2015; and, Assembly Bill (AB) 116 extended the approval period 2-years to October 10, 2017. TentativeTract Ma' 17444' ; App ing Authority.- A rovaVEidension,T e.' Approval Period'.. Approval '' Date ; Expiration Date Planning Commission Original Approval 3 Years 10/10/07 10/10/10 Senate Bill 1185 Automatic Extension 1 Year 10/10/11 Assembly Bill 333 Automatic Extension 2 Years 10/10/13 Assembly Bill 208 Automatic Extension 2 Years 10/10/15 Assembly Bill 116 Automatic Extension 2 Years 10/10/17 Planning Commission Time Extension DRC2017-00755 1 Year 10/10/18 ES—Pg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00755— GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. November 8; 2017 Page 3 B. Map Extension: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regulates the subdivision of land through Title 16, the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Section 16.16 is applicable specifically to Tentative Maps (Five or More Parcels)-- and provides for time extension requests through Section 16.16.170 Extensions. Section 16.16.170.A. states: "The subdivider or his representative may request an extension of the expiration date of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map by written application to the community development department. The application shall be filed not less than 60 days prior to the expiration date and shall state the reasons for requesting the extension." The application to extend SUBTT17444 was submitted on September 19, 2017, and includes a letter stating the reasons for requesting the extension (Exhibit C). While the applicant did not meet the 60 day submittal deadline, flexibility in the submittal deadline has been afforded applicants in the past where the map extension request was submitted prior to the entitlement expiration date and could be brought before the Planning Commission in a timely manner. C. Conformance with Development Code: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 was designed to meet or exceed all development standards applicable to subdivisions in the Low Medium (LM) District. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 is for the subdivision of air space for condominium purposes for the future sale of the 13 units approved for the project site. The subdivision remains in conformance with Development standards for the Low Medium (LM) District for multi -family developments. D. Biological Survey Update: A biological resource update letter (Recon; June 7, 2017) was submitted as part of the request for the time extension. The letter verifies that no native habitat types occur on -site and no federally listed species were observed or are expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable native habitats, level of disturbance that has occurred to the site and development of surrounding lands. No direct or indirect impact to federal listed species are anticipated from the project or the related tentative map time extension. E. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 10, 2007 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicate new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has evaluated Time Extension DRC2017-00755 and concludes that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. The biological resource update letter dated June 7, 2017, concludes that no direct or indirect impact to federal listed species are anticipated from the project or the related tentative map time extension. The application is for a one (1) year time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map with no proposed changes to the scope of the original approval. 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 E5—Pg 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00755— GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. November 8, 2017 Page 4 mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of Time Extension DRC2017-00755. 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 related to the project or the notifications. : /:114III&II3i Exhibit A - Aerial Photo Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 Exhibit C - Time Extension Request Letter Dated September 14, 2017 Exhibit D - Biological Resources Update Letter Dated June 7, 2017 Exhibit E - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 10, 2007 (with Exhibits) Exhibit F - Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 07-59 for SUBTT17444 Draft Resolution of Approval for Time Extension DRC2017-00755 1W--TA—WW E5—Pg 4 A� London AvF, All Id 00!S A- J .22 ok C 0 We Archibald Ave �7 ;"Jadeite: ve I =E is Juniper-11 1 qpmpt]. 65 , k 0 " . , — VA # M�, . I - � I W*4t I Ilek A�j ; Archibald Avi 4� E- fts cc C/) Cw 87 or, I s �a e$W o u I I f D�- I I I I I I I I I I �l I e I NI 4 UI I I I Us, NIYO, Dili I eaess=}A i "I Q�i.Y33 A;s?A�3 — 8.r1E5r .a u r2e' N �'. 1�A 6= f e1iA.f: ❑ of Q OtKjo A 1 C iig as PP YY ah F Y SYY,, dPbbbh 55 3 ! _y Y Ycd., 'y_i. F44 � Pbbb PhhP P� d ^••9C i; Ag=3 9qE§g� �� 1 aSY 2' rYY@e•' 'bf �. "59 .E'FFj i' �A ,.a ov i } 2e2e A ml �} 9f EPA25 $ 39 VM `Y""=_33 "iI 8 y 6 5 _ g •@q 6 � eC =e g g gi°32§..A S3YYY y `4 6dg t. ��i! `A'g.. 5? ePz Aa u �e5d Y YYYYL1gj ®�3 °.des 3 115; oY,c ...^.9 iY� Y pR.' iY c f 5 �E[i.agghha4 ggYlEEEE igeBeAA w ge5 s@e d Eel :5 ifs= IAf i eae4� l�C [ va �[�?Yi2B44SP „f$ •:• S $ EXHI13IT B E5-Pg 6 Tentative Tract Map Extension Request Letter Golden Avenue Development, Inc 10 Elk Grove Ln. Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 September 14, 2017 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 To whom it may concern, The intention of this letter is that we want to extend the Tentative Tract Map for Tract 17444 project. We want to extend the Tentative Tract Map for 16 months, because we are still working on the final map process. The project of Tract 17444 is located on 6910 Archibald Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. It consists of 13 unit detached dwellings. Due to the elevation, all the water flows coming from 210 Freeway drains through our property and discharge to the City s storm drain on Archibald. Because of the huge amount of water flow, we originally proposed to construct a 54" Reinforced Concrete Pipe collecting the surface flows from our neighbor, Chaparral Height Mobile Home Park, and discharge to the City's storm drain system. We submitted our plan sets to the City last year, and our house plans were approved by the Building Department in mid-2016. At the end of 2016, our plan checker from the Engineering Department, Willie Valbuena, retired. As a result, our plans were held by the Engineering Department for a couple months. Therefore, we requested an extension for our plan check process from the Building Department, and the City granted us a one-year extension. Recently, we were notified by the Engineering Department that the City will have a big storm drain project on 19`h Street in 2018 spring. The new storm drain system will collect all the water flows from 210 Freeway and discharge to the existing storm drain system. Thus, the 54" RCP underneath our property will become useless. In order to discuss the detail of this storm drain issue, we held a meeting with Albert Espinoza and Romeo David. The Engineering Department officials gave us a suggestion that we could start our project in September 2018, once the City storm drain is completed. According to the Engineering official, there will be no surface water discharging to our property, after the City's storm drain on 191h Street is constructed. If we start the construction this year, the 54" RCP inside our property will be abandoned in the future, and it leads to waste of resources. Therefore, we want to follow the City's engineer suggestion, and postpone our project starting date. As the project developer, we sincerely request a Tentative Tract Map extension for our project so that we can start the construction in September 2018. Sincerely, Golden Avenue Development, Inc. EXHIBIT C E5—Pg 7 RE CON An Employee -Owned Company June 7, 2017 Mr. Ye Liu Golden Avenue Development, Inc. 10 Elk Grove Lane Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Reference: Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter for Mountain View Estates: Required Background Information for Issuance of CLOMR-F (RECON Number 8777) Dear Mi•. Liu This letter provides the background information needed by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to make a "no take" determination as part of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR-F) for the Mountain View Estates project. The project applicant is proposing to alter a portion of the current FEMA-delineated 100- year floodplain. Information contained in this letter demonstrates how the Mountain View Estates project would not affect any listed species covered under the federal Endangered Species Act. The 2.6-acre project site is located in the city of Rancho Cucamonga approximately 8 miles north of Interstate 10 and S miles west of Interstate 15 (Figure 1). Specifically, the site occurs to the west of Archibald Avenue, north of Monte Vista Street, and east of East Street (Figure 2). The project site includes Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0202- 131-27, 0202-131-61, and 0202-131-62 Biological Resource Evaluation Methods EILAR Associates Environmental and Acoustical Consulting biologists conducted a general biological survey on the project site in June 2005. The biological resource survey identified one land cover type on the site: "Landscaped and Exotic". No native habitat types occur on -site. Federal listed species with the potential to occur on -site were evaluated based on habitat present on the project site. The information provided on habitat was used to make determinations on the likelihood of any federal listed species to be directly or indirectly affected by the project. A search of the California Natural Diversity Database was conducted to fund known observations of federal listed species either on the project site or in its vicinity (Attachment 1). The potential for these listed species to occur on the project site was then further evaluated using the information on habitat preferences and ecological conditions preferred by each species. No federal listed species were observed or are expected to occur on the project site due to the lack of any suitable native habitats, level of disturbance that has occurred to the site, and development of surrounding lands. No direct or indirect impacts to federal listed species are anticipated from the project. There is no critical habitat for any federal listed species designated on the project site. Effects on Federal Listed Species Federal listed plant and wildlife species with the potential for occurrence on the Mountain View Estates project site were evaluated for presencelabsence and for any antidipated direct or indirect impacts on these species. The project site lacks suitable habitat for any of the listed species with the potential for occurrence on -site. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to any federal listed species are anticipated from the project. Sincerely, LSo P Sc r Biologist GAS:eab :1927 Fifth Avenue. San Diego, CA 92101 619.308.9333 1 reconenvlronmental.com SAN DIEGO I CENTRAL COAST I BERKELEY I TUCSON EXH1 B IT D E5—Pg 8 ATTACHMENT 1 E5-Pg 9 Attachment 1 with the Potential for O�uucrton.. on the Mountain View Estates P Habitat/PreferencelReyuirementsl Bo<I f !).-rv•;a N n uru= Blooming Period - _ +: I,, PLANTSPECIES POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAmLY Slender -horned spineflower FE Chaparral. alluvial hm scrub. Old sandy b.mohes ar This spvvirx ha.+u low p,aanual for Daderahman lepweros floodplain terraces below 4200 feel. ixeurence on -site due to the Inrk of n ro einte habitat. WILDLIFE SPECIES DVVERTEBRATES MYDIDAE Delhi Sands flower-Iming Rv FE Delhi sands formation inland dunes. This species has a low potential for Rhaphimnidas terminates coorrenee on -site due to the lack of obdominolis appropriate sandy soils and level of past disturbance. AMPHIBIANS BUFO..TDAE TRUETOADS .arroyo food FE Open strenmsirle sand/gravel Rats. Quiet. shallow This species has a low potential for Ana.n'raa calijarnirns pools along stream edges are breeding habita,t. occurrence on :site due to the lack of Nocturnal except during breeding season appropriate stream habitat. (Mareh�Julvl. RAMI)AE TRUE FROGS Mountain yellow -legged frog FE Perennial rocky stream courses. steep gradient This species has a low potential for Roan nmx<osa streams. rivers, perennial wrecks. occurrence omits due to the lack of appropriate stream habitat. BIRDS SYLVIID.AE GHATCAT('HERS Coastal California FT Coastal sage scrub, maritime suttuh nt scrub. This species has a low potential for gnatenteher Resident. occurrence n-site due to the lack of Poliapnla rnli(ornica approprdnte habitat cnli arnica Mountain View Estates Project Page I ES-Pg 10 Mountnin Vier Estates Project Page 2 E5-Pg11 Q l� L O S AN G E L E S C O U N T Y San Gabriel Reservoir Morris Reservoir Q dgtifwoatf Norr� of f.•.'Rrflrf: Hesperia c �m VJr S/i.00d Lake S A N B E R N A R D I N O', C O U N T Y San Bernardino m Los Snn nrinnln Glendora Angeles ili,.- . ,,t n+,1uor; Claremont isa -k; Le GNRgh Upland 7F Rancho ''tRialto Y' Verne .Park Cucamonga Fontana Charter 66 Oa Sari Covina. Dumas �+ - "'R'o West Covina Pomona- -- Montclair Walnut ; - rJ Ontario .14ustr .F Diamond Bar Gol[un _, ,.------- Grand 60 •-- "cr sr,�bn--.� s� .Y,h �Terracc Chino _J I x.ro ' c, Box SpSprings ftubtonux �: 'MoentaL, ?e e`af �{ Mira Loma Resarva' Ped% 1> y� w�1a Sar"If Reg a Y L S. ` 'S _. Riwr Reg Perk £ Chino Hills 71` s � ills (: E Riyjefside irk Prsdo Flood N too Control Basin e J�11 - inda c a e R I V E R S I D E Corona wwa.:re,t RSIDE'•.` COUNTY ram, DIEGO Clo i� iw J fi" Lake Mathews * Project Location RECON MNOBSS87771mmman_gievgt.mxd 6/62017 sea 0 Mgggiia , FIGURE 1 Regional Location E5-Pg 12 Fee�r', A QMountain View Estates Project Boundary FIGURE 2 UC O N Project Location on Aerial Photograph M:UOBS5'b7771common_gIsWg2 ESA.mxd 6162017 mb E5—Pg 13 T H E C I T Y O F RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: October 10, 2007 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT - DRC2005-00523 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES - A request to change the Development District Map from Medium Residential to Low - Medium Residential to bring the site into conformance with the General Plan, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue and 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street - APN: 0202-131-27, 0202-131-61 and 62. Related files: Development Review DRC2005.00250, Minor Exception DRC2005-00522, Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00521 and Preliminary Review DRC2004-00331. This action will be forwarded to the City Council for final action and the date of the public hearing before City Council will be separately noticed. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17444 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide 2.17 acres for the purpose of creating a 13 unit condominium development in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre). However, a Development District Amendment has also been submitted that would amend the designation to Low -Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The project is located on the west side of Archibald Avenue and 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street - APN: 0202-131-27, 61 and 62. Related Files: Development Review DRC2005-0250, Development District Amendment DRC2005-00523, Minor Exception DRC2005-00522, Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00521 and Preliminary Review DRC2004-00331. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00250 - CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a 13 unit detached condominium project on 2.17 in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre). However, a Development District Amendment has also been submitted that would amend the designation to Low -Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The project is located on the west side of Archibald Avenue and 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street - APN: 0202-131-27, 61, and 62. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map 17444, Development District Amendment DRC2005-00523, Minor Exception DRC2005-00522, Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00521 and Preliminary Review DRC2004-00331. EXHIBIT E E5—Pg 14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2005-00523/SUBTT17444/DRC2005.00250 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 6 dwelling units per acre B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Mobile Home Park/ Low -Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Single -Family Residential/Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Multi -Family Residential/Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Mobile Home Park/ Low -Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low -Medium Residential (4-B dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2-4) dwelling units per acre) South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Low -Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The 2.17 acre site is comprised of three parcels and slopes gently to the southeast. The site will share access with the mobile home park that borders the site to the north and west. The site contains 45 trees of various species and the remnants of a stone -lined drainage channel. The mobile home park has an open storm drain which currently surface drains across the site and enters the public storm drain system at the southern property line of the site. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposes constructing 13 detached condominiums on 2.17 acres of vacant land. The proposed density is 6 dwelling units per acre which is in the middle of the Low -Medium Residential range of 4-8 dwelling units per acre. The project consists of three floor plans ranging in size from 1,705 to 2,113 square feet. Models A and B are two-story units with two elevations per floor plan; Model C is a single -story unit. The site will share ingress and egress with the mobile home park that abuts the project to the north and west. A new traffic signal will be constructed to aide access to both the project site and to the mobile home park. The project was designed to conform to the development requirements outlined in the Development Code for the Low -Medium Residential District. The Development Code does not give specific development criteria for condominium projects within the Low -Medium Residential District. This in turn, makes it difficult for the project to meet the setback requirements that are measured from the property lines when a condominium project, by its nature, does not have internal property lines. To overcome the issue, the applicant was directed by staff to meet the intent of the Development Code. This was accomplished by the project meeting the required side and rear setback as measured from the 6-foot high block walls surrounding the private yard areas of each unit. The overall project meets the front yard setback from Archibald Avenue. To overcome the reduced front yard setback for the individualunits, the applicant was required to double the required on -site guest parking spaces. Each unit also includes two private enclosed parking spaces. The project exceeds E5—Pg 15 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2005-00523/SUBTT17444/DRC2005-00250 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 3 the Private, Common and Usable Open Space area requirements. The project also includes a large open grass play area, a tot lot and barbecue facilities to meet the Recreation Facility requirement. B. Tentative Tract Mao SUBTT17444: Concurrent with the Development Review application is Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444. The tract map proposes the subdivision of airspace for residential condominium purposes, which will allow individual ownership of the homes and common ownership of the open space, parking, driveways, and landscaped areas. C. Development District Amendment DRC2005-00523: The General Plan land use designation for the subject site is Low -Medium Residential. The Development District Map designation for the site is Medium Residential. The applicant has requested that the site be developed under the Low -Medium zoning designation. In order to bring the Development District Map into conformance with the General Plan, the applicant has applied for a Development District Amendment. This change will give the site the same Development District designation as the mobile home park which the site shares ingress and egress and abuts on two sides. D. Minor Exception DRC2005-00522: The project includes an application for a Minor Exception to allow a 7-foot high perimeter wall along Archibald Avenue. The project site is within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Exhibit V-13. An acoustical analysis of the project site was completed and concluded that with a 7-foot high perimeter wall along Archibald Avenue, the project would comply with the City's exterior residential noise standards of 60 dBA. The Planning Director will consider the approval of the Minor Exception following the Planning Commission's action on the related project applications. E. Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00521: The applicant has submitted a request to remove 45 trees in order to accommodate the development of the site. An Arborist Report was prepared on May 17, 2005 which surveyed the site and found a total of 45 trees that qualify as Heritage Trees under the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Of those trees, all but 6 trees have been recommended for removal because of their poor condition. The report recommends preserving 6 trees if they can be incorporated into the landscape design for the project. The Development Code requires that new developments plant 40 trees per acre of which 90-percent must be 15-gallon size trees and 10-percent must be 24-inch box size trees. To overcome the removal of the majority of mature trees on the site, the applicant will be required to plant 100 percent 24-inch box size trees to meet the Development Code tree planting requirement. F. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McPhail, Stewart, Diaz) on February 6, 2007. At the meeting, the Committee members were concerned about insufficient guest parking and the aspects of the design of the homes. The applicant redesigned the project and the Committee reviewed the revised plans on July 3, 2007. Staff presented the revised drawings which satisfied all issues identified by the Committee (Munoz, Stewart, Diaz) at which time they recommended approval. G. Grading Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Grading Committee on February 6, 2007, and the preliminary Grading Plan for the project was conceptually approved. E5—Pg 16 PLANNING COMMISSION'STAFF REPORT DRC2005-00523/SUBTT17444/DRC2005-OD250 —CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 4 H. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on January 6, 2007. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the, attached Resolutions of Approval. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the 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 air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality and noise, 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. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 11, 2006, to discuss the proposed project. Property owners within 300 feet were notified of the meeting and approximately 53 neighbors attended. Those in attendance did not raise any issues regarding the project and a number stated that they felt that the project would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley DaiIV Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Staff required the applicant to post a large 4-foot by 8-foot Notice of Filing sign on the property, which was also used to post the City's public hearing notice. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444, Development Review DRC2005-00250, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2005- 00521 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further recommends the approval of Development District Amendment DRC2005-00523 to be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Respectfully submitted, Jams R. Troyer, AICP o Planning Director JT:TV/ge E5—Pg 17 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2005-00523/SUBTT1 7444/DRC2005-00250 —CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit D - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 Exhibit E - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit F - Building Elevations Exhibit G - Floor Plans Exhibit H - Design Review Committee Action Agendas dated February 6 and July 3, 2007 Exhibit I - Initial Study Parts l and II Draft Resolution of Approval for Development District Amendment DRC2005-00523 Draft Ordinance for Development District Amendment DRC2005-00523 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17222 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2005-00250 E5—Pg 18 0 N O O yj O O N U C V/ J W W � �amry UJ m� LUYo= Z_ v O� =(oz` o E d �O J I I ITFFF P ; N I I I I I__\ I. I I I ¢E I YY bS Aa � z..x.x �y. g. 4¢. A:A Aaaa .a a ,.:[; E;?yni � � � •3' � � p i Yi: u55Y55 YSapt yvf ��i .^9s, .. scev s� 4 iEiLee2�din �� � ss fin WillE: �Ipl .. r0se�-xzx:axx,,. jze 5ee.� :v 3x2 3= YE,:35 §333 l °;ag 5 eerrr� 3i Y� n .. lz _cYc• �:-b:3 'rt! 3 l�e S.:S ss'ss3 r4 Ab t «%s .i�'q : ee •e s5 "u §eya YY °YSYS ¢� 'e�ss Y ! ay iq • i Y 45s =. ggYei s'sv5 "si= Y '�• it i eb�¢[s •.x _ � =,5 ¢t.s az•s==: a,.,. ���! °!a? � S@pp 3'e &`Y 5u _......¢ -` .. .. .i.:v` �:• pp ce¢c S'.i15 i Bill �? �i ��ei as-i Y373s ai�9v _ E EX I MIT B A B &� ?G, to l0/07 E]E C I �1 u MODERN — w E5—Pg 20 / �E,�X�� ` Z� Z R««- n H nI " ®© — � ! k �! Is G 21 mffmc:=�m ti T q Z W ILO O0a10 U W F, PL �zW0m O GIQ? Z U a 1—C _ Lu g. N U F 0 Z W LJIei%e PC �O%v a7 { � H k 7 t��g zQa�§tl, %- a@'°vie.?I "' asE€'4se4S_Fp Oi % ea IFfi @WWpI Pop StintS.lfh..cj lie HIP �Gi CyyS @3 p f YQ' Qa g2'p5�gg6at „� pq®yM3$a3 I I; I q)�${${%P9t.eei��u ee. ?3 Y� g 6980�F4 v .a, - A,B,&C— 9 r+� E5-Pg 22 t1 y. ry'u �l! +'f ��� 'n� �•� yy�L � o E 1{{ � i4 c� I� I I�� s (/��' e. 0 o .7 i€u Sp.eg pia �e .e ko ■ I° i t � o 77 EXH11DIT E "Y'lY10 S w, 6 W Q S��uG�ao r S�;E6aW W e5�a�5 o :epa "WEE 5 °" W E=aping G° EVEN g�� . Sau3 i EXHIBIT F ?4' /c)7;0/C)7 A.B,&C- 0 4 5 E5-Pg 24 ; > \ .�� Al � . , 1 � \ § / \ E-e3 5 � tlry 113 jSW �SS{�^. 1�0 j :FYi2 A,B,&C- 13 ES-Pg,26 �L^.O i±t:i: it£ kiw I CZIi i 3 ��`W2 i.t t.tj k I A,B,&C- 14 E5-Pg 27 {mu �M1 it �• A,B,&C- 15 E5-Pg 28 1 c�zz :-1. €I ill II com - - ■ Pc /&I,ol 7 FXHIRIT r, asp i 9 U E5-Pg 29 EL 33 �_ :. I( F =k 1{t •�.i p� /mac C. °�, `P '> r� � �� V :Effie r!1 I `wl Il dxt Imo T' .4d :1��7 t 1Q 2 ggK�1 EI E5-Pg 30 Gil w6^ FF {r a 0U 8VpY C A,'B,&C- 18 E5-Pg 31 SCSk YFFC gq�p SS e y - �p GC ui r'-------- ------ ------ A, B,&C-' 19 ES-Pg 32 E5 Co ' A F [[3r ,e ui f ex. a A@n �wGf i�a>: A,B,&C- 20 ES—Pg 33 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Louis Le Blanc February 6, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005 00250 - CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES - A project to construct a 13-unit detached condo development on 2.17 acres in the Medium Residential Zone (8-14 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0202-131-27, 61, and 62. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17444 - CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES - A Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to create a 13-unit condominium development In the Medium Residential Zone (8-14 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0202-131-27, 61, and 62, Design Parameters: The project site is located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Victoria Street - APN: 202-131-27, 202-131-61, and 202-131-62. The project consists of 13 detached homes to be subdivided and sold as condominiums with common and private areas. All elevations exhibit wait movement providing relief and visual interest to the wall planes. The applicant is proposing a total of 3 models, 2 of which are two-story models and one single -story floor model. All 3 models will use stucco as a primary material. Model Numbers A-1 and C will have a band of stack stone veneer around the building and entryways. Model Number A-2 will have a band of real river rock around the building and entryways, plus wood siding and wood accent trim to compliment architecture. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. There are no major issues. Secondary Issues: Additional guest parking should be explored. It is staff's opinion that the site needs additional guest parking or design the units to have longer driveways that will provide additional temporary parking. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the project with all major issues resolved and recommends review and approval by the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Diaz Staff Planner: Louis Le Blanc The plans were reviewed by the Committee and the item was continued to give the applicant time to respond to the following comments. Issues raised by the Design Review Committee included the pc /v/iv /0 7 EXHIBIT H A,B,&C- 21 E5—Pg 34 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2005-00250 AND SUBTT17444 February 6, 2007 Page 2 following: 1) add (double) the required amount of visitor parking, including required disabled parking space, 2) list and identify on -site recreational amenities for the project, 3) re -study and modify the proportions of window size/shapes relative to large stucco planes on all models and at the front/rear (major gable ends) of unit A2, 4) eliminate the use of single -shutter applications on the.bullding elevations to avoid an unbalanced appearance, and 5) correct exterior notes to indicate the use of natural river rock where proposed (no manufactured river rock veneer allowed). A,B,&C- 22 E5—pg,35 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag IJuly 3, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17444 - CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide 2.17 acres for the purpose of creating a 13 unit condominium development in the Medium Residential District, located on the south of Victoria Street and west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 202-131-27, 61, and 62. Related Files: Development Review DRC2005-00250, Zone Change DRC2005-00523, Variance DRC2007-00390, Minor Exception DRC2005-00522. Tree Removal Permit DRC2005.00521 and Preliminary Review DRC2004-00331. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00250 - CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a 13 unit detached condominium project on 2.17 acres in the Medium Residential District, located on the south side of Victoria Street and west of Archibald Avenue =APN: 0202-131-27, 61, and 62. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444, Zone Change DRC2005-00523, Variance DRC2007-00390, Minor Exception DRC2005-00522, Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00521 and Preliminary Review DRC2004-00331. Design Parameters: The project consists of 13 detached homes to be subdivided and sold as condominiums with common and private areas. All elevations exhibit wall movement providing relief and the visual interest to the wall planes. The applicant is proposing a total of 3 models, 2 of which are two- story models and one single -story floor model. All 3 models will use stucco as a primary material. Model Numbers Al and C will have a band of stack stone veneer around the building and entryways. Model Number A2 will have a band of real river rock around the building and entryways, plus wood siding and wood accent trim to compliment architecture. Background: The project first went to the Design Review Committee on February 6, 2006. At that time staff was concerned that there was insufficient guest parking. The Design Review Committee agreed with staff and required that the applicant double the amount of guest parking. The applicant complied and has doubled the amount of guest parking from 5 spaces to 10 spaces. The Committee also asked the applicant to make the following design changes: 1) list and identify on -site recreational amenities for the project; 2) redesign the windows on all models and the front and rear elevations on Model A2 in order to reduce the current large stucco planes which give, the homes an unbalanced appearance; 3) eliminate the use of single -shutter applications; 4) use real river rock instead of river rock veneer. The applicant has complied with all of the Committee's requirements as follows: 1) they have added recreational amenities to the Site Plan; 2) they added additional windows to the side elevations of Models A and B and added a hip -on -gable roof to the front an rear elevations of Model A2; 3) they have eliminated all single -shutter applications; 4) they will only use real river rock when river rock is called out. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. There are no major issues. Secondary Issues: All secondary issues have been resolved. A,B,&C- 23 E5—Pg 36 DRC ACTION AGENDA July 3, 2007 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that the applicant has complied with all of the design changes outlined by the Committee and recommends approval as submitted. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Lou Munoz, Michael Diaz Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag The Design Review Committee accepted the project as presented except for the request to remove window shutters from selected windows on each model. A,B,&C- 24 E5—Pg 37 RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17444, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.17 ACRES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A 13 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE). THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 150 FEET NORTH OF MONTE VISTA STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0202-131-27, 61 AND 62. A. Recitals. 1. Creative Design Associates filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444, as described in the title of this Resolution. However, a Development District Amendment has also been submitted that would amend the designation to Low -Medium residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 10th day of October 2007, 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 October 10, 2007, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at the on the west side of Archibald Avenue and 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street; and b. The subject site slopes generally from north to south and has 45 trees of various species; and C. The properties to the north and west of the subject site are developed with a mobile home park; the properties to the south are developed with single-family homes; and the property to the east is developed with apartments; and d. The application is to subdivide approximately 2.17 acres of land into 13 detached condominiums; and e. The site will share access from Archibald Avenue with the neighboring mobile home park. EXHIBIT F E5—Pg 38 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 SUBTT17444 —CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 2 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 tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likelyto cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The tentative tract map is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 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 thatthere is no substantial evidence thatthe 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 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, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intentto 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: (1) 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. E5—Pg 39 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 SUBTT17444 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 3 d. The custodian of records forthe 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 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 Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannino Department 1) Final recordation of tract map conditioned on approval by the City Council of Development District Map Amendment DRC2005-00523. 2) All pertinent conditions of approval for Development Review DRC2005-00250 shall apply. 3) Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00521 is hereby approved forthe removal of up to 45 trees of various species. If any of the 6 trees outlined in the arborist report can be incorporated into the Landscape Plan for the project, the applicant shall protect the trees with a barrier as outlined in the arborist report. Because of Borer beetle infestation, all Eucalyptus tree wood shall be chipped, removed, and buried at a dump site or tarped to the ground for a minimum of 6 months, sealing the tarp edges with soil, to prevent emerging Borer beetles from reinfesting other trees or wood. The movement of Eucalyptus wood containing live Borer beetles, or their larvae, in trucks or trailers is prohibited by State law pursuantto Public Resources Code 4714.5. 4) Trees shall be planted at a quantity of 40 trees per acre. All trees shall be minimum 24-inch box size trees. 5) All perimeter walls shall be decorative and have a uniform design that is compatible with those in the area. Engineering Department 1) Archibald Avenue is a City "Major Arterial." Development will be required to install improvements along the full frontage on Archibald Avenue to City standards, extending south to Monte Vista Street and north of the driveway (street type entry) at Victoria Street including, but not limited to, curb and gutter at 36 feet from centerline of Archibald Avenue, AC pavement to centerline of street, curvilinear sidewalk, primary and secondary access, street lights and street trees. All Public improvements to be in accordance with the City's "Major Arterial" street design standards. a) Provide primary site ingress/egress access from the joint use driveway along the northerly property line in accordance with City "Driveway Policy," aligned centerline to centerline with Victoria Street. This entry E5—Pg 40 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 SUBTT17444 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 4 is a street type and will include cross gutter, pavement, curb returns with radius per City Standard No. 100-B and access ramps. b) Provide secondary drive approach access in accordance with City "Driveway Policy" and Standard No.101 Type C (drive approach entry). c) Provide traffic signing and striping on Archibald Avenue as required. d) Provide R-26 "NO -PARKING' signs and additional traffic signing and striping as required by the City Engineering Traffic Section. e) Curvilinear sidewalk shall remain within street right-of-way and cross drive approach at the zero -inch curb face. f) Complete street improvements south to Monte Vista Street, including curb return with single access ramp. Provide an ADA compliant access ramp on each of the Monte Vista Street corners. g) Provide a new storm drain catch basin on west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Monte Vista Street. h) Relocate the existing catch basin on the west side, north of the new joint use driveway. 2) Developmentwill be required to install all missing frontage improvements on Monte Vista Street including street trees, curb return, sidewalk, and access ramps per Condition 1.f. above. 3) Remove an existing headwall at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Monte Vista Street and replace with a local storm drain system to serve the mobile home park and other areas to the north that are tributary to this site. The storm drain should be placed under the project drive aisles and sized to handle developed capacity from all tributary areas. The trees cannot be planted within 5 feet of the storm drain line. Provide catch basins on Archibald Avenue (Conditions 1.g. and 1.h. above). Provide for Q100 secondary surface overflow in case the local storm drain pipe should become filled to capacity or blocked. Surface overflow shall drain across this site to Archibald Avenue. Curbside drain outlets through the right-of-way may be necessary. Surface overflow system shall be designed to handle the Q100 event, and the pond depth can be no greater than 12 inches in automobile parking areas. a) In case of blockage at the proposed storm drain headwall inlet structure, Grading Plan shall be revised as necessary (including pad/FF elevations) during the building permit plan check period to produce flow line, top -of -curb grades, rate of slope and other to maintain secondary surface overflow within project drive aisle until outlet to public street. b) Backwater ponding effect at the headwall shall not' occur on the adjacent property. Any backwater ponding shall only occur on -site per the revised final drainage study analysis. E5—Pg 41 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 SUBTT17444 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 5 c) Storm drain and surface overflow easements shall be dedicated to the City. 4) Final drainage study shall address: a) Headwall considerations in Condition 3 above. b) Overflow route across project to Archibald Avenue on Monte Vista Street in the event of headwall inlet blockage. c) Determine actual tributary area currently reaching this facility (interim condition) in the absence of future MPSD planned for Amethyst Avenue and Lemon Avenue, and whether interim condition warrants mitigation measures. d) Determine ultimate tributary area and design requirements. 5) It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone A designation removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain an un-shaded zone "X" designation for the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all the necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/ hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prior to approval of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. a) If the Federal Emergency Management Agency is unwilling to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map, elevation certificates shall be provided for lots within the flood zone. 6) Lot 6 finish floor is lower than the adjacent drive aisle top -of -curb (to the north), located east of the proposed storm drain inlet headwall. This may direct overflow toward Lot 6 and this could be a potential flooding problem should the inlet become blocked. a) In accordance with Building and Safety typical lot grading, finish floor elevation should be set no less than 2 percent from the highest adjacent top of street curb plus one-half foot (check with Building and Safety Department). 7) Dual wall scenario shown in Grading Plan Section C-C could force inlet overflows onto the adjacent property to the south. Provide method of draining area between walls and/or accepting cross lot drainage from the adjacent site. 8) Maintenance of BMPs identified in the WQMP shall be addressed in the project CC&Rs. E5—Pg 42 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.07-59 SUBTT17444 —CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 6 9) Ultimate street right-of-wayforArchibald Avenue, measured from centerline of street, is currently showing 53.2 feet. This shall remain and provide/obtain additional easement(s) for the main Archibald Avenue ingress/egress entryto facilitate the street type entry as required and for traffic signal equipment. 10) All existing overhead utilities fronting this development shall be undergrounded and/or removed in accordance with City requirements. 11) This developer shall install and maintain private landscaping as well as street trees within the parkways on Archibald Avenue and Monte Vista Street, fronting this development. 12) In addition to other Engineering fees, a non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first 6 months of operation, prior to building permit issuance or approval of the final map, whichever occurs first. 13) A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate landscape and lighting districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 14) Provide public storm drain overflow easement on final map (12 feet minimum for pipe, but overflow may require more). Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 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 man ufacturers'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 City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low -emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, orthattheir 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. E5—Pg 43 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 SUBTT17444—CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 7 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 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. 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 Fine Particulate Matter (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. 10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. Biological Resources 1) Preserve or relocate the following trees: E5—Pg 44 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 SUBTT17444 —CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 8 • 3 Jeffrey Pine Trees identified as trees 16, 17, and 18 in report. • 1 Canary Island Date Palm identified as tree 31 in report. • 1 Eucalyptus Lemon Scented Gum identified as tree 32 in report. • 1 Coast Live Oak identified as tree 33 in report. 2) One hundred percent of the trees to be planted to meet the City's 40 trees per acre requirement shall be minimum 24-inch box size trees. Cultural Resources 1) 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. • Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. • 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. 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or 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: E5—Pg 45 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 S U BTT17444 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 9 • 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. Geology and Soils 1) 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 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. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 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 PM10 emissions. Hydrology and Water 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the 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, included in 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 ES—Pg 46 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 SUBTT17444—CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 10 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. Post- Construction Operational 5) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by W & W Technologies on April 27, 2005, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 6) 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. 7) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer 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. 8) Priorto issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall obtain a Notice of 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. Noise 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. E5—Pg 47 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.07-59 SUBTT17444 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 11 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. 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 notifythe 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. 4) Haul truck deliveries shall nottake 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. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 5) Construct a continuous 7-foot high solid wall with no openings or gaps along the entire Archibald Avenue frontage at the 45-foot setback from the curb -face and wrapping around at the north and south ends to a distance to be determined by final acoustical report. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2007. PLANNING CQMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA W Pam Vedvart, Chairman ATTEST: KI',' R, S."') Jam q R. Troyer, AICP, Secreta I, James R. Troyer, AICP, 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 bythe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of October 2007, by the following vote -to -wit: E5—Pg 48 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-59 SUBTT17444 — CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 10, 2007 Page 12 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE E5—Pg 49 City of Rancho Cucamonga - MITIGATION MONITORING w PROGRAM Project File No.: DRC2005-00523, SUBTT17444, DRC2005-00250, AND DRC2005-00522 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the (Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Impact Report) for the 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 City Planner, 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 E5—Pg 50 Mitigation Monitoring Program DRC2005-00523, SUBTT17444, DRC2005-00250, AND DRC2005-00522 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's 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. 4. 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 Division. The Division 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 atthe 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 City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. E5—Pg 51 M Ln - I a to Ln r1i MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART 111) Project File No.: SUBTT17444 and DRC2005-00250 Applicant: Eric Chen, Creative Design Assoc. Initial Study Prepared by: Tabe van der Zwaaa Date: October 10, 2007 Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions Tor for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non-Comphance Implementing Action A u ie:Q ality. All construction equipment shall be maintained in good PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4 operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers'specificafions. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permits, the PD/BO C Review of plans C 2 developer shall submit construction plans to 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. 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. All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards BO B Review of plans A/C 2 noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: Reestablish ground cover on the construction site BO C Review of plans A/C 214 through seeding and watering. 1 of 8 m Lq i v Un w Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions fo Implementing Action for Monitoring Frcquency Verification Verification Date 11nitials Non-Complianc • Pave or apply gravel to any on -site haul roads. SO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large SO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 areas to erosion overextended periods of time. • Schedule' activities to minimize the amounts of SO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance SO C Review of plans A 4 with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established BO, C During A 4 by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public construction 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., SO C During A 4 wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with construction SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils SO C During A 4 haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other Construction suitable means. The site shall be treated with water or other soil- BO C During A 4 stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional construction Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and SO C During A 4 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction construction areas thatremain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean SO C Review of plans A/C 4 alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that SO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 construction -grading plans include a statementthatwork crews will shutoff equipmentwhen not in use. 2 of 8 m U1 i v vi A Responsible Monitoring Timing of d of Verified Sanctions for I VerificationMitigation Measures No. I ..- ce implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification All residential and commercial structures shall be BO CID Review of plans C 214 required to incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. All residential and commercial structures shall be BO C/D Review of plans C 214 required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. -Biological Resourcesr _ Preserve or relocate the following trees: PD B Review of Plans C 2 • Three Jeffrey Pine Trees identified as trees 16, 17, and 18 in report. • One Canary Island Date Palm identified as tree 31 in report. • One Eucalyptus Lemon Scented Gum Identified as tree 32 in report. • One Coast Live Oak identified as tree 33 in report. One hundred percent of the trees to be planted to meet PD B Review of Plans C 2 the City's 40 trees per acre requirement shall be minimum 24-inch box size trees. . I Cultural Resources - - 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 PD/BO C Review of report AID 3/4 from demolition or significant modification with out an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. gm- m U1 v i to Ln Ln VerificationMitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance • Consider establishing provisions to require PD/BO C Review of report AID 3/4 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. • Propose mitigation measures and recommend PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. , • Prepare a technical resources management report, PD C Review of report A/D 3/4 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. 4 If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal PD B Review of report A/D 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 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 PD B report Review of re p A/D 4 equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth -disturbing activities. 4of8 m I v �n cn rn No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of M Mitigation Measures Implementin Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date flnitials Non -Compliance' 1 9 Should fossils be found within an area being cleared BO B/C Review of report AID 4 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 PD D Review of report D 3 documentation in the summary report and transferto an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho PD D Review of report D 3 Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a f copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Geology 77 The site shall be treated with water or. other BO C During A 4 soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and construction RWQCB) daily to reduce PMto emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re -planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a BO C During A 4 schedule established by the City to reduce PMIo construction emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off -site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind BO C During A 4 speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PMjo emissionsfrom construction the site during such episodes. Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO C During A 4 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PMIo emissions. 5 of 8 m v u� Lq V 'HydrologyandWaterQuality- Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the permit applicant BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 shall submit to Building Official for approval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) thatshall be used on -site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in BO B/CID Review of plans A/C 2/4 grading plan, and implemented forthe proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on -site and off -site erosion from the time of ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures ate minimum: a) Specify the timing ofgrading 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. During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 214 or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. During construction, to remove pollutants, streetcleaning BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 will be performed priorto storm events and afterthe use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sedimentfrom the site. The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in CE B/C/D Review of plans AIC 2/4 the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by W & W Technologies on April 27, 2005, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. MM Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling BO B1C/D Review of plans A/C 214 I 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. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall CE B/C/D Review of plans A/C 214 submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP); including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) thatwill 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. Prior to issuance of Grading or Paving Permits, applicant BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 ; shall obtain a Notice of 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 I Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General I Construction Permit. Norse ., _ Construction or grading shall not take place between the BO C During A 4 hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including construction Saturday, or at anytime on Sunday or a national holiday. 7 of 8 Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the BO C During A 4 standards specified in Development Code Section construction 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. 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. The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as earlyas PD C During A A possible in the first phase. construction Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the PO/SO C During A 4t7 hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including construction Saturday, or at anytime 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. Construct a continuous 7-foot high solid wall with no PD C During Plan A 4 openings or gaps along the entire Archibald Avenue Check frontage at the 45-foot setback from the curb -face and wrapping around at the north and south ends to a distance to be determined by final acoustical report. Kev fn Checklist Abbreviations Responsible pe son, - - :_ ., -' "` ' _ _ _Monitoring Frequency Method ofVerification. - _ - _ _ sanotions " CDD -Community Development Directorordesignee A -With Each New Development A -On -site Inspection 1 -Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD- Planning Director or designee B- Prior To Constructlon B- Other Agency Permit l Approval 2- Withhold Grading or Building Permtt 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 Bands 6 - Revoke CUP FC- Fire Chief or designee I:\planning\final\cega\mmchklst-revt 2-4-06final.doc WOW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DRC2005-00250 AND SUBTT17444 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 150 FEET NORTH OF MONTE VISTA STREET— APN: 0202-131-27. 61 AND 62 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. 2. Approval of Tentative Tract No. SUBTT17444 is granted subject to the approval of DRC2005-00250. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 07-59, 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. 4. 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 Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 b) Notice of Determination - $50 c) Negative Declaration - $ 1,850 X d) Environmental Impact Report - $2,550 SC-1-05 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM12007 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00250StdCond 10-10.doc E5—Pg 60 Project No. SUBTT174d. APID DRC2005-00250 Completion Date 5. 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 B. Time Limits This tentative tract map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. 2. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. 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 Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform 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 Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. 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. 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 or Specific 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 Director 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 Director review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits. 10. 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. I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00250SWCond 10-10.doc. __/—/- -/—/ _ J—/- —/—i— _/__/- -/_J E5—Pg 61 Comoletion Date 11. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 13. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Departments and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 14. 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 City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting'of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 16. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and City Engineer 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. 17. 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 owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's perimeter. 18. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 19. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 20. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 21. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 22. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the Development Code. I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res & SO Rpt\DRC2005-00250SWCond 10-10.doc E5—Pg 62 i 0. S' IET . =".T Ri lD D.`<•J£Jv;$.i00e30 Completion Date 0 Landscaping 1. 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 or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. _/_/_ 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, 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 40 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the project. 4. 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 coverfor erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 5. 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. 6. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold _/_/_ and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 7. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required perthe Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. S. 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 Department. 9. 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. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department. 11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 12, Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the 'principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM',2007 Res a Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00250SWCond 10-10.doc E5—Pg 63 Completion Date E. Environmental 1. Noise levels shall be monitored after construction to verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. Noise levels shall be monitored by actual noise level readings taken on- and off -site. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to final occupancy release. The final report shall also make recommendations as to additional mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to below City standards, such as, residential exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA and interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA. 2. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 3. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. 4. 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 Director in the amount of $ 538 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. 5. 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 Director 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. F. Other Agencies 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 priorto the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) G. General Requirements Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; Foundation Plan; C. Floor Plan; I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res & Stf Rpt\DR02005-00250Stdcond 10-10.doc —J—/. —/—/— E5-Pg 64 r, �;ect Alp. oJSiii S�-:T4 :,Piu G �C2GJ5-„J[d0 Completion Date d. Ceiling, Roof, and Floor Framing Plan and reverse Ceiling, Roof and Floor Framing Plan (when applicable); 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., SUBTT17444 and DRC2005-00250) -clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can contact the Building and Safety Department staff for information and submittal requirements. H. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT17444 and DRC2005-00250 ). 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 Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. 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. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permits issuance. 3. The Building and Safety Official shall provide the street addresses after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. 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. New Structures Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire -resistiveness. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. J. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 1APLANNINGTINAL\PLNGCOMMl2007 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00250StdCond 10-10.doc —/—/— E5—Pg 65 „--..-,ND 9K250 Completion Date 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading 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. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 5D cubic yards or more of _/_/_ combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. Note on title sheet that plans must be submitted for plan check and be approved prior to construction. 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 Department if you have any questions about the procedure at (909) 477-2710. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 50 total feet on Archibald Avenue 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 3. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 4. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or _/_/_ deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. 5. Private drainage easements for crass -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 6. Easements for public sidewalks and future traffic signal equipment placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City at Victoria Street entry. IAPLANNINGTINALPLNGCOMM2007 Res & Stf RptORC2005-00250SWCond 10-10.doc E5—Pg 66 ?i=;=_. pia. S.:STT'i;-<- .."1J ✓nJ5J5-DJfi55 Completion Date L. Street Improvements Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building service equipment 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 or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development_ 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt i Side- walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Comm Trail Median Island Bike Trail Other Archibald Avenue X X (c) X X X (e) Monte Vista Street X X X X (f) Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (0) 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) Curbside drain outlet; (f) Access ramps 3. 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, priorto 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 City Engineer's Office 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 galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. (:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMMk2007 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00250StdCond 10-10.doc _J_J— E5—Pg 67 ComDletion Date I. 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 Director 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. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. Min. Grow Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing Size city. Archibald Avenue Platanus acerifoila London Plane Tree B' 30, O.C. 15 Gal Fill Foreground Tree In Pyrus calleryana NCN 3' 20' O.C. 15 Gal P.A. 8' or Greater P.A. Less than 8' 'Aristocrat' Lagerstoemia indica Tuscarora' Crape Myrtle Hybrid — Pink 3' 20' O.C. 24" Box Under power lines Background tree - with Platanus - with Pyrus Magnolia grandfflora'St. Mary' NCN 3' 26 O.C. 15 Gal Platanus aceriflia London Plane Tree 8' 30' O.E.7 15 Gal Lagerstoemia indica Crape Myrtle Hybrid — 3' 20' O.C. 15 Gal Accent Tree 'Tuscarora' Pink Victoria Street Pistacia chinesis Chinese Pistache 5' 30' O.C. 15 Gal Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Department. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 6. 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. M. 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 City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00250StdCond 10-10.doc —/—J- -/—/ E5—Pg 68 - :. 3u3Tr;,'--�k.c ,Pc_s s-c zse Completion Date 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan Archibald Avenue. N. Drainage and Flood Control 1. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain an unshaded "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 2. 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. 3. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 4. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. 5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of anypublic storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. _/___/_ 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls. O. Utilities 1. 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. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVW D), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVW D 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. P. General Requirements and Approvals 1. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be obtained prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: Street type driveway aligned with Victoria Street. 2. 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, priorto final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. _/_/_ 10 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00250StdCond 10-1 Moo ES—Pg 69 Completion Date 3. 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. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909)'477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED 11 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res & Stf Rpt\0RC2005-00250StdCond 10-10.doc E5—Pg 70 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection ®r"', District Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS December 6, 2005 Mountain View Estates SWC Archibald and. Victoria St SUBTT17444 and. DRC2005-00250 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. FSCA Public and Private Water Supply Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants: The following provides design guidelines for the spacing and location of fire hydrants: a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in single-family residential projects is 500-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 250-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed 200-feet. b. Fire hydrants are to be located. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are: At the entrance(s) to a commercial, industrial or residential project from the public roadways. ii. At'intersections. Ill. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. iv. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire District. v. A minimum of forty -feet (40) from any building. FSC-2 Fire Flow The required fire flow for this project is 1,500 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix III -A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. 2. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius 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. E5—Pg 71 3. Firewater 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 firewater 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-4 Requirement for an Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in: All structures that do not meet Fire District access requirements (see Fire Access). 2. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access Fire District access roadways include. public roads, streets and highways, as well as private roads, streets drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire Department Access — Fire Lanes Standard 9-7. 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 20-feet. c. The minimum outside turn radius shall be 46-feet. d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14-feet, 6-inches.' 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%. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). 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. 2. Residential gates installed across Fire District access roads shall be installed in accordance with RCFPD Residential Gate Standard #9-1. The following design requirements apply: 2 E5—Pg 72 a. All automatic gates shall be provided with a Fire District approved, compatible traffic pre-emption device. The devices shall be digital. Analog devices are not acceptable. Devices, shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and specifications. b. Vehicle access gates shall be provided with an approved Fire District Knox Key Switch. c. The key switch shall be located outside and immediately adjacent to the gate for use in the event that the traffic pre-emption device fails to operate. d. A traffic loop device must be installed to allow exiting from the complex. e. The gate shall remain in the open position for not less than 20-minutes and shall automatically reset. 3. 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 B&S for approval. 4. 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 B&S for plan review. FSC-9 Single-family Residential Sales Model homes require approved Fire District vehicle access and water supply from a public or private water main system before construction. 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 $92 review fee. FCS-14 Map Recordation 1. Reciprocal Access Agreement: The plan as submitted indicate that the required Fire Department access: a. Is located on property which is not under the control of the applicant; or b. Crosses a property line; or C. Is shared by multiple owners; or d. Is located on common space under the control of an owner's association Please provide a permanent access agreement granting irrevocable use of the property to the Fire District. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other structure shall be placed within the dedicated access without Fire District approval. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site plan. The agreement shall be presented to Fire Construction Services for review and approval, prior to ES—Pg 73 recordation. The agreement shall be recorded with the Recorder's Office, County of San Bernardino. To assist Fire Construction Services in reviewing the agreement the following shall be included in the submittal: a. The current title reports to provide a legal description and proof of ownership for all properties included in the agreement. b. The assessor's parcel numbers of each parcel subject to the agreement. C. A scaled site plan showing the path of the Fire District access, the width, turn radii and slope of roadway surface shall be provided. The access roadway shall comply with the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. 2. Reciprocal Water Covenant and Agreement: The plans as submitted indicate that a required private fire mains or appurtenances a. Pass through or are located on property not under the control of the applicant; or Crosses a property line; or C. Provide service to adjacent properties; or d. Is located on common space under the control of an owner's association; or e. Is shared by multiple owners. Please provide a permanent maintenance and service agreement between the owner for the private water mains, fire hydrants and fire protection equipment essential to the water supply. The agreement shall meet the form and content approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. The agreement shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services for review and approval, prior to recordation. The agreement shall be recorded within the Recorder's Office, County of San Bernardino. FCS-15 Annexation of the parcel map: Annexation of the parcel map into the Community Facilities District #85-1 is required prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Chronological Summary of RCFP® 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, 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 # 9-8 and #10-4. The Building & Safety Division and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections. E5—Pg 74 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 CCWD. 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 # 9-8 and #10-4. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD 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 CCWD. Fire Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 3. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14' 6" above the finished surface of the road. 4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. 5. Easements and Reciprocal Agreements: All easements and agreements must be recorded with the County of San Bernardino. Annexations: To the San Bernardino County Fire Department must be completed. 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: 1. 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. E5—Pg 75 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). 5. Fire Suppression Systems and/or other special hazard 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. 7. 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 #9-1 by Fire Construction Services. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Address: Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. 11. Address: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commerciallindustrial and multi -family buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting background, visible from the street and electrically illuminated during periods of darkness. 'When the building setback exceeds 200 feet from the public street, an additional non - illuminated 6-inch minimum number address shall be provided at the property entrance. Larger address numbers will be required on buildings located on wide streets or built with large setbacks in multi -tenant commercial and industrial buildings. The suite designation numbers and/or letters shall be provided on the front and back of all suites. 12. Hazardous Materials: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate (in writing from the County) that the facility has met or is meeting the Risk Management Plan (RMP) .or Business Emergency/Contingency Plan with the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials/Emergency Response and Enforcement Division. The applicant must also obtain inspection and acceptance by Fire Construction Services. 13. 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. E5—Pg 76 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 DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2005-00523, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17444, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00250, AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2005-00522 Public Review Period Closes: October 10, 2007 Project Name: Project Applicant: Creative Design Associates Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the west side of Archibald Avenue and 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street —APN: 0202-131-27.. Project Description: A request to change the Development District Map from Medium Residential to Low -Medium Residential to bring the site into conformance with the General Plan Followed by a request to subdivide 2.17 acres for the purpose of developing a 13-unit detached condominium development in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and a request to build a wall 1 foot higher than the 6 foot maximum permitted by the Development Code in order for the residential development project to comply with the City's exterior residential noise standards. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00521 and Preliminary Review DRC2004-00331 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. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the pro ed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. October 10, 2007 �l Date of Determination Adopted y E5—Pg 77 RESOLUTION NO. 17-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00755, A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A ONE (1) YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (SUBTT17444) RELATED TO A 13-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON 2.17 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW MEDIUM (LM) DISTRICT (4 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 150 FEET NORTH OF MONTE VISTA STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0202-131-27, 61 AND 62. A. Recitals. 1. Golden Avenue Development, Inc. filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 10, 2007, this Commission adopted Resolution No. 07-59, thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. A State allowed extension (per SB 1185) extended the approval period 1-year to October 10, 2011. 4. A State allowed extension (per AB 333) extended the approval period 2-years to October 10, 2013. 5. A State allowed extension (per AB 208) extended the approval period 2-years to October 10, 2015. 6. A State allowed extension (per AB 116) extended the approval period 2-years to October 10, 2017; 7. On November 8, 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. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on November 8, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: E5—Pg 78 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-91 TIME EXTENSION,DRC2017-00755— GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. November 8, 2017 Page 2 a. The application applies to a 2.17 acre parcel of land located the west side of Archibald Avenue and 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street; and b. The property is within the Low Medium (LM) District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre). To the north and west is a mobile home park (Chaparral Heights) in the Low Medium (LM) District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre); to the east is single-family development in the Low Medium District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre); and, to the south is single-family development in the Medium (M) District (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre); and C. The subdivision of the project site conforms to all applicable development standards of the Development Code for the Low Medium (LM) District; and d. This application is a request to extend the approval period of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 for one (1) additional year. The time extension is necessary to allow time for the completion of a City sponsored storm drain project that will eliminate an Engineering Department requirement to construct an enlarged on -site storm drain system to carry storm water from the west and north of the project site. 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 previously approved tentative tract map is consistent with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, Ordinances, plans, codes, and policies. The proposed project is for the subdivision of 2.17 acres of land for condominium purposes for the construction of a 13-unit multi -family development. The project site is within the Low Medium (LM) District which permits the construction of multi -family development; and b. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed subdivision. The project site is surrounded by residential development of similar or greater intensity and is well suited for the proposed development; and C. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. An initial study was prepared for the original project that was approved by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2017, along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed potential environmental impacts created by the construction and operation of 13 multi -family units on the project site. Mitigation measures were included in the original approval reducing any potential impact to less than significant. A biological resource update letter (Recon; June 7, 2017) was submitted as part of the request for the time extension. The letter verifies that no native habitat types occur on -site and no federally listed species were observed or are expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable native habitats, level of disturbance that has occurred to the site and development of surrounding lands; and d. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed subdivision complies all development standards outlined in the Development Code for multi -family projects within the Low Medium (LM) District; and e. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. State law allows for one (1) year time extensions. E5—Pg 79 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-91 TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00755— GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. November 8, 2017 Page 3 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 Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 10, 2007 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicate new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. The biological resource update letter dated June 7, 2017, concludes that no direct or indirect impact to federal listed species are anticipated from the project or the related tentative map time extension. The application is for a one (1) year time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map with no proposed changes to the scope of the original approval. 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. C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444. 5. Based upon the findings.and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension. The new expiration date for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444 is October 10, 2018. 6. All applicable Conditions of Approval in Resolution No. 07-59 and incorporated Standard Conditions in Resolution 07-59 for SUBTT17444 shall apply to Time Extension DRC2017-00755, except for Engineering Department Condition of Approval 5a, which is no longer applicable and the addition of the following Condition of Approval: If the applicant for this project chooses to wait for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct a public storm drain system and remove the proposed project from the flood plain as determined by FEMA, the applicant shall as a condition of approval for the project accept all remaining off -site storm water flows from the adjacent upstream property(ies). The storm water flows shall be conveyed through the project as a privately maintained storm drain system and shall connect to a public storm drain system in Archibald Avenue. The inlet system to intercept the off -site storm drain flows shall be a privately maintained curb type catch basin within the project boundary. All off -site improvements shall be coordinated with the adjacent property owner(s). E5—Pg 80 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-91 TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00755— GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. November 8, 2017 Page 4 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NJ 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E5—Pg 81 v 1 r 1 1 ■\ V 1 v 1% 1 DATE: November 8, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner© INITIATED BY: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP - A request to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to increase the allowable FAR from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the specific plan to allow for the construction a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains remnants of an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, -79, -84, -89 and - 90. Related Files: Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2016-00670 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP - A review of a proposal to construct a 232,058-square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, -79, -84, -89 and -90. Related Files: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP - A review of a proposal to remove one hundred twenty-eight (128) existing trees on a vacant property to allow for the construction of a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, - 79, -84, -89 and -90. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) Recommend that the City Council approve Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016- 00931 through adoption of the attached Resolutions and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project; and E6—E8 Pgt PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00931, DRC2016-00670 AND DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 8, 2017 Page 2 2) Approve Design Review DRC201.6-00670 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671 through adoption of the attached Resolutions. BACKGROUND: This item was previously scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing that was to be held on May 24, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the Planning Department received a letter (Exhibit R) from Blum Collins LLP, on behalf of the Golden State Environmental and Social Justice Alliance, in response to the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated on April 21, 2017. The letter provided comments and recommendations relating to the Air Quality, Biological Resources, Green House Gas, and Noise sections of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Department also received a letter (Exhibit S) from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) with concerns regarding the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment analyses. The Planning Commission granted a continuance at the request of Staff to allow the applicant the time to adequately prepare a response to the comments/recommendations that were received. These comments and recommendations are further discussed within the Environmental Assessment section below. The applicant and the applicant's consultants have since worked with Staff and submitted a response that addresses the concerns described in the letters. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: Floor Area Ratio - 44.9 percent (0.449) B. Site Characteristics: The project site is comprised of five (5) vacant parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). The site is approximately 585 feet (east to west) by approximately 869 feet (north to south). This site once contained an office building and parking lot that was part of a large industrial complex occupied by General Dynamics. The building has since been removed and the parking lot and on -site landscape have not been maintained. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant/Abandoned Mixed Use Planning Area 5 (Empire Parking Lot Lakes Specific Plan) North Multi -tenant Office Mixed Use Planning Area 4 (Empire Developments Lakes Specific Plan) Vintage Apartments and Ontario Center Urban Residential District South Camden Landmark (City of Ontario) (Ontario Center Specific Apartments Plan — City of Ontario East Multi -tenant Office Mixed Use Planning Area 5 (Empire Developments Lakes Specific. Plan) West Undeveloped Vineyard Industrial Park Industrial Park (IP) District E6—E8 Pg2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00931, DRC2016-00670 AND DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 3 C. Parking Calculations: Number of Square Parking Number of Spaces Type of Use Footage Ratio Spaces Required Provided Office 15' Floor 20,000 1/250 80 Office 21d Floor 6,700 1/250 26.8 15120,000 @ 1/1,000 20 2nd 20,000 @ Warehouse 205,358 1/2,000 10 Above 40,000 @ 42 1 /4, 000 Total 178.8 255 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, on behalf of IDS Real Estate Group, proposes to construct an industrial logistics building with a floor area of 232,058 square feet. The building will consist of two (2) office areas (26,700 square feet) and a warehouse area (205,358 square feet). The offices will be located at the southwest and northeast corners of the building. The dock loading area, with 33 dock doors, will be located along the west side of the building. There will be a trailer storage area with 34 trailer parking spaces located adjacent to the loading dock. The dock and trailer storage areas will be screened from the streets and neighboring properties by a concrete tilt -up wall of 8 feet in height that will be architecturally compatible with the proposed building. There will be an employee break area located near each office. Each will be a minimum of 500 square feet in area, as required by the Development Code. Landscape coverage is 11.5 percent (59,428 square feet). Access to the site will be provided via two (2) driveways along Utica Avenue and one (1) driveway along 4th Street. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction and will contain a combination of blue reflective vision and spandrel glazing, clear anodized mullions and metal canopies (Exhibit E). The south elevation, which will be visible along 4th Street, contains a significant amount of glazing. Downspouts will not be visible from the exterior on any elevation of the building as they will be routed through the interior of the building. The building will have a height of 40 feet and 3 inches. The exterior of the building will be painted a combination of various shades of white and gray. B. Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931: The Empire Lakes Specific Plan (ELSP) consists of eleven (11) "Planning Areas'. The project site is located within Planning Area 5 (Exhibit P). The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted in this Planning Area is 35 percent (0.35) (Exhibit L). Based on the subject parcel's area of 515,690 square feet, the maximum floor area of the proposed industrial building would be 180,491 square feet. The proposed building has a floor area of 232,058 square feet that will result in a FAR of E6—E8 Pg3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00931, DRC2016-00670 AND DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 4 44.9 percent (0.45). The Specific Plan as implemented has been developed over time with office developments where a FAR of 35 percent (0.35) was appropriate because the footprint allowed for required parking to support the office land uses. Reducing the floor area of the building to comply with the current maximum FAR is uneconomical for the applicant's client. Furthermore, it is impractical as this results in leaving the subject property relatively unusable for any other purpose besides parking and landscaping, which is not necessary to support an industrial use. To resolve this, the applicant proposes to amend the ELSP to increase the FAR to 50 percent (0.50) (Exhibit M). Although this increase is greater than the amount the applicant currently needs, this will ensure that the building, once constructed, will continue to conform with the ELSP if future tenant(s) of the building need the flexibility to expand and/or create additional interior office area should their operation(s) require it. Furthermore, the increase in the FAR would establish consistency with the maximum FAR permitted in the General Industrial (GI) and Industrial Park (IP) Districts which both have maximum FARs of 60 percent (0.60). It would also allow the subject property to be developed similarly to the adjacent property located to the west across Utica Avenue. The proposed amendment would apply only to Planning Area 5 of the ELSP. The FAR of all other Planning Areas within ELSP would be unchanged. C. Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671: As noted in the attached Arborist Report (Exhibit K), prepared by Steve Andresen Arborist Services on August 1, 2016, the site contains one hundred twenty-eight (128) trees, four (4) of which were determined to be heritage trees. Per the report, "The property on inspection was a parking lot with the mature trees growing in the strip planting areas at the borders of the property, and planters in the parking areas. The location looked to have been empty for some time with cracked asphalt, broken planters, weeds and all irrigation turned off or removed. Many trees are in a stressed condition due to lack of irrigation water and maintenance. Trees have been cut down and vandalized." Due to the current condition of the existing trees and their conflict with the subject development, the applicant proposes to remove all trees from the site. The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 1) submitted with the application indicates the applicant will be replacing the trees with one hundred ninety- six (196) new trees throughout the parking lot, site perimeter and along the proposed building. D. Neighborhood Meeting: On January 9, 2017, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at The Courtyard by Marriott located at 11525 Mission Vista Drive (Exhibit N). All property owners within 660 feet of the subject property were notified. Attendees included the applicant, architect, contractor and project planner. No members of the public attended the meeting. E. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Wimberly, Macias, and Granger) on January 17, 2017. The main issue raised by staff involved the building's lack of a second primary building material. Per Section 17.122.030 (D)(1)(b) of the Development Code, a minimum of two primary building materials shall be used. Staff discussed this issue with the applicant prior to the Design Review Committee E6—E8Pg4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00931, DRC2016-00670 AND DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 5 meeting. In response, the applicant revised the building elevations to include sandblasted concrete as a second primary building material. The Design Review Committee accepted the proposal as presented with this revision. The Committee also agreed with Staff's remaining policy issues, which are discussed in Exhibit O, and recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for their review. Their conditions of approval are included in the attached Resolution. F. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on January 17, 2017. No issues were raised. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission. Their conditions of approval are included in the attached Resolution. G. SB18 and AB52 Tribal Consultation: Senate Bill 18 (SB18) requires that the City send project notification to California tribal communities when a project proposes a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment. California Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) requires that the City send project notification to interested California tribal communities when a project requires an Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration. In accordance with SB18 and AB52, on January 12, 2017, notifications were sent to Native American communities who were on the list of communities provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (per SB18) or requested to be notified (per AB52) to determine interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. The City was contacted via email on January 25, 2017, by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) who stated a records check of the ACBCI cultural registry revealed that this project is not located within the Tribe's Traditional Use Area (TUA). Therefore, the ACBCI tribe deferred to the other tribes in the area and concluded their consultation efforts. The City was also contacted via email on March 7, 2017, by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) who requested that a Cultural Resource Assessment be sent over to their Cultural Resources Management Department for further review in order to determine whether the tribe will pursue further consultation. SMBMI also requested to review the draft mitigation measures relating to cultural and tribal cultural resources. On March 29, 2017, staff forwarded the Cultural Resource Assessment, prepared by Psomas in July of 2016, as well as the draft mitigation measures relating to tribal cultural resources to the SMBMI for review. On April 6, 2017, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians forwarded their comments, which included minor additional text to the draft mitigations and concluded their input on this project. Their comments were incorporated into the mitigation measures. No other contact was made by any of the other tribes that were notified. H. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project (Exhibit Q). 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, hydrology and water quality, noise and Tribal cultural resources, 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 and was circulated on April 21, 2017. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the E6—E8 Pg5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00931, DRC2016-00670 AND DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration at a Planning Commission hearing that was scheduled for May 24, 2017. Due to letters received on May 22, 2017 (Exhibit R) and 24, 2017 (Exhibit S) from Blum Collins LLP, on behalf of the Golden State Environmental and Social Justice Alliance and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Planning Commission granted a continuance at the request of Staff to allow the applicant the time to prepare a response to the concerns described in the letters. The concerns include (a) the project's potential to impact air quality, (b) the adequacy and specificity of the Health Risk Assessment, (c) the analysis of the project's impacts to biological resources and (d) the project's noise impacts. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant worked with their air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas, health risk and noise consultants, and have provided responses that address the concerns mentioned in the letters above. The concerns and responses are discussed below and in the attached response letters. The letter submitted by Blum Collins LLP, on behalf of the Golden State Environmental and Social Justice Alliance, commented on several environmental -related concerns. The comments provided in the letter were also supplemented by comments and technical analyses prepared by SWAPE (Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise), an environmental consulting firm. The letter questioned the adequacy of the air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas, health risk assessment and noise sections of the initial study. The details of these concerns are provided in the attached Blum Collins LLP letter. In response to this letter, the applicant's air quality, noise and biological resource consultants, RK Engineering Group, Inc. and Ecological Sciences, Inc., each prepared detailed response letters (Exhibits T and U) that reaffirm the adequacy of the technical analyses used to assess the projects impacts. In doing so, RK Engineering and Ecological Sciences clarified that the methodologies used in their analyses were accurately prepared and that no new mitigation would be required as no new significant environmental impacts were discovered. The letter submitted by SCAQMD expressed a series of air quality related concerns. The most significant of the concerns relates to the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that was prepared by RK Engineering on July 14, 2016. SCAQMD staff indicated that the HRA has likely underestimated health risk projections created by the project due to improper methodology and modeling. In the response letter submitted by RK Engineering on August 2, 2017 (Exhibit V), RK Engineering indicated that they revised the HRA analysis to comply with the most up to date SCAQMD requirements. According to RK Engineering, the slight update to the analysis merely amplifies the analysis in the previously circulated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Air Quality Report and does not affect the conclusions that were previously made. Since the project was not determined to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, additional mitigation measures are not required. Furthermore, the applicant responded to the remaining concerns discussed in the letter and confirmed that the project does not cause any significant unavoidable air quality, greenhouse gas or health risk assessment -based impacts, and therefore no additional mitigation is required. E6—E8 Pg6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00931, DRC2016-00670 AND DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 7 Furthermore, Staff received a project support letter (Exhibit W) from Golden State Environmental and Social Justice Alliance on October 4, 2017, that indicated, "Golden State Environmental & Social Justice Alliance ("GS") is pleased to support the Project. GS hereby rescinds its May 22, 2017 comment letter on the Project's Mitigated Negative Declaration. GS believes that the construction and operation of the Project will benefit the City, and that the Project has incorporated adequate mitigation measures to offset and reduce its potential effect on the environment." According to CEQA section 15073.5(c), recirculation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required under the following circumstances: (1) mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1; (2) new project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects; (3) measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and (4) new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. In summary, the project's mitigation measures were not modified and no new project revisions were added in response to the concerns. The design of the proposed industrial development remains the same as prior to receiving the comments that were submitted by Blum Collins LLP, on behalf of the Golden State Environmental and Social Justice Alliance and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Furthermore, no new measures were added in response to the concerns. The only new information that was added to the Mitigated Negative Declaration was for clarification purposes. This includes explanation of the air quality, greenhouse gas, health risk assessment and noise analyses. Therefore, recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. A Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. 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: transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, and police,. The project will also create temporary jobs during the construction of the site and permanent jobs during the operation of the site. The number of permanent jobs that the project will generate in unknown at this time as the tenant has not yet been determined. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: MID AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING E6—E8 Pg7 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2016-00931, DRC2016-00670 AND DRC2016-00671 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 8 One of the City's Council goals is to revitalize underutilized areas and enhance industrial land uses. The proposed industrial building will in -fill a vacant, underutilized site and enhance the existing industrial area located north and east of the site. Approval of the proposed building will permit the area to develop with general industrial uses as specified in the General Plan and Development Code. 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 comments have been received in response to the notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Aerial Photo Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Floor Plan Exhibit D - Roof Plan Exhibit E - Elevations Exhibit F - Overhead Utility Plan Exhibit G - Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Exhibit H - Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit I - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit J - Photometric Plan Exhibit K - Arborist Report Exhibit L - Existing Development Standards Summary (Table 5-6, Empire Lakes Specific Plan) Exhibit M - Proposed Development Standards Summary (Table 5-6, Empire Lakes Specific Plan) Exhibit N - Neighborhood Meeting Notification (January 9, 2017) Exhibit O - Design Review Committee Action Comments (January 17, 2017) Exhibit P - Empire Lakes Specific Plan Conceptual Land Use Plan Exhibit Q - Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial Study Part I, II and III Exhibit R - Blum Collins LLP Letter of Concern (May 22, 2017) Exhibit S - SCAQMD Letter of Concern (May 24, 2017) Exhibit T - RK Engineering Group, Inc Response to Blum Collins (October 13, 2017) Exhibit U - Ecological Sciences, Inc Response to Blum Collins (October 19, 2017) Exhibit V - RK Engineering Group, Inc Response to SCAQMD (October 13, 2017) Exhibit W - Blum Collins Project Support Letter (September 30, 2017) Draft Resolution of Approval for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2016-00670 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671 CB:DP/Is 0 0 L a w am EXHIBIT A E6-E8 Pg9 e c �e 00.800 00 00 0000000 pi t g zz py g sy$ x� d 9 8 ®d' b i S I I d M i, 1g Nipp is i'll jp. € 3��3 ssgg�$ssas'�ff9,s9aa3 s�ga'si s �$zx .x 9Y,Y �.ed, �i Hl86 l.3Yi3 Fig; 3LN711v v�I EXHIBIT B E6—E8 Pg10 z IN 5-EBa2 S kEE 95 .. FJ to FOn ®3�6 aZee a ige�e �� �3ekn�e�4@o�aRR�9�c E6-E8 Pg12 t q3; as 3 d q P@ � g � e a `I ei4�£3lC%�`. �i9 d�$$p$$9 F vagqg 12a Y.g@ @eI eP i = ' w5 @ a qq e 0 5 @ P@ u, 54. 0000000 O�OOOOe'�00000®OOrJ000 ie a ^@mg @ ping, SNaa�� e� g �' d & ^>s agf 7 .3+�3i j;[[II'a e4 a is i6 P Y7� lj^� qOil . 0 El 2 El El Q 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 Q Q 4 4aamil 4,--- e 1 -4------------ I I I I I I j•�o I OI I I I i I I I I I ---4---f---�--� — -- --F---- --- ---I---4---i:e o�• j I I I I, 'I I I I I j'� I I I I I I I I I I 4a° Y O C j I 1�1 E I 'p I I j 1( E I• '� �= l'1 ial O 0- '=f e- �Q n 3 e _ it 2I " i _____ ____ _ Ij b b b b b b •'b b b b web b b t= EXHIBIT C E6—E8 Pg13 ■ '9�zE&�� I:�`_F A,�i ■c o: $gp �E ..c �3 �3 � l V s� "s It $ / 8 IN Q Q o Q e$ c o c Q o 0 0 o c 1 4 I I I I •• I I� I I� I � � I I I� I I •I I I I I� I ool I I I I j W col I I I I I � I I I I I �I I --._. I I I • � I 1 I I I Ir I • n n Ii t o i i I c I I o i j t o i I I 14o f i - I I I I I I I I I I I O b b b b b b b b bb b b E6-E8 Pg14 Is O N U l K O O LL LL O N sv N � m mini N [ M8 a 3gg I33 e gg m �+� i �.�Ap ar 1 Y 3 f�[a yy pp pp a�> �aG LF � o • - � jj 7 d 9p PC y• 1! 1@'s i 8n Fal s 8.9 ap'7 ° €' $ r 1Pa In n�a v3� Py§ f Sn g a- i � @ip f;7' f C ra>55�sn•@� rr 7 y? Ir ; � i �a 3 a �: ear g 1 D3 r� e gg � p °' � � i � § a' s t�• r g%��j'i g3ep�(]i i� I=g.f rig c ii �.'eA343ai t f35S��a��a,t B' y "'iY 7a '3�a •9� n'�I s�.i nice q , a:�ap P•g �7y iq' � 78p a•�i p8>i9P 2p: � � pv42. oPSP§P2 a�d a�P �i 3f]�f]P £i 7§9 Bf3 al�a9PE'aC of BsPiP49 0 L . � ...• ... ...... omo o�0000�a®a® Y 'a ar 4 4 4 4 4 Q 0 4 0 O O 0 0 I I n. ! T I I EN I I I i ®IF i �Pk i i i e I ePe I i P 6 � I i 7 i 1 a i IF U,,e ° e �— I l e. © p Ulu e p a p a � 9 e p A o- e A A A Fa A la A A b r fi n qI p --. n---. V1 A i2,E-E A A fi A E� A A A 6 An fi i J4-41 I I I I I I �I I I O 0 O b b b b b b b bb b b EXHIBIT E6—E8Pg16 �\' '/�` •) �° ° •� � ( ��! � • / `.HIM! EXHIBIT E E-GR9 // .E�\\( .; � • ESEee � 3d34A e 8 $ yy e$g SSSEsss� pp y5 3 0 pg 9 3 5 ESA• 5s y f ppq± Ep I M @ adv p 3F qq ls9 3p�5 @3 f id¢` Q`p y C.O" O" O- 0 F- Q Q t- Q _Id xx 99 7 • r t 3 — F 3 E- z R - 1 9 f- t k E- eb a�. t E• x ., F 31 R F- E- a R £- - k E^ Y 4 R n it E6—E8 Pg19 11 -red ` J � � /� ! i • ! b n ! ! 9 b 6six/)§e!/ J�lG G\Rg&d@bn S-@ G2 ) ! • : md\ ; Bu !� | � d \Q \| 6weA Q G$R/E§g§§)| mmmmmmmmmme / e-e e2 ¢d QJ �)9H • �� a ` b ! , QR�| |, | `§ will •ee g, © /` b\G2mo4bgs| ■ / E-EBG2 `�\��\ •\/\\(.f ) \.) m � )�`�� � ° � � � �/\/ • \ J ! � ! ji mmmmmmmmmWe ƒ \ \ E6-E a5 all \\ lGmmmmmmmmmw / ) ( / \ § ) E-EBR& M 1.1owk1.1 ;' I'il Ilf¢711 HPA Job No. 11336.00 CONCEPTUAL COLORED ELEVATIONS & MATERIAL BOARD 01.102017 sandblasted concrete West Elevation sandblasted' concrete \•` 'A I T7 T South Elevation .sanublascetl conrrete j,santlbitetl. � concrete \ sandblasted concrete re \ , TRr W LQ Nj East Elevation .sandblasted concrete. sandl HPAStreet; Utica Avenue 1 .,aeum CITYOF • CUCAMONGA, Job No. 11336.00 CONCEPTUAL COLORED ELEVATIONS 01.10.2017 z Q J a J_ I-- Q W LU 0 LU z Of LU LU d a 0 i. W W z 0J O U z_ 0-1~ O W w w LU L LI U) 2 ry D O L.L I EXHI13IT E ""OW1 0N'!NW r; taseusrwerear "o " NVldlN3NL3'JVMN� satin Ili Nl> ALIVfIDiCiLVM AaVNWW Md Z K O Q u K z ❑ J N n Z : i - Q T - LU K U K O Ir W J Q t Z .............. .................... r _ _ 3 ' u a a •6 s ! "qg3 IN p j y ��Y35 ag Is _ 1 ?§SN 1.§53Eg sq • i �� �: ex,F�9��9"�9'a�9�9x i ! rxee3seea @ i.......................... .................................... ..................... ....... � 3 33 lcr� ! ° i m m S Q N ! ry 33 1 3 E e � I i p ............................ ...... .........�_...._........ `..... 3 g � s .............._.......................:$� dal 00 o- issm m EXHIBIT G E6-E8Pg28 • 49�6y3 '6� s° 5 �` �' �� is � ` :e $�3 a�,�xttv.... Spa l��� � � 8 E §§ r U) Z Q J d Z Q W Q z 2 d O W F 7 O�cai 0- z 0- — Z Q J U < U D U } od O Q � z J W ry a 5gc A gg N ^ &&e re. M C��y 8 33y qyqy y5 �sw �§1 g d ^ e 9-$3 rya? g sw -;Tlo 1 NMI, 9�6[pypOHS! � 3 d LLg�a.s a ig �&"o 910 EXHIBIT H 13MUS Hit, INN ' I o reeeeeeaISCYe. .,"3'. pg ppig 0 ■�� ng' ■` s PS ,M,�nur'-'" ,.a U>, ■ $ U 9 ? Fn� . iESEp� i iI VOMOv n>oaaara :I - iaaau.urmam a lIBIHX3 II II I�tlD110 8 Hl4 � „„,,.. flvd�d 3'JtlNIV2i0 31I5 Z. _ - O � I � O Q $ n _. o m ZQ :'9 :: x LU �-T �g�? Of ww o ❑ D ❑ .. ..��..� C .w....�Q . nr...................................iuy � r 3 4 t r.e� IV I t d.= a u goi sp O's I i E6—E8 Pg32 a 3 w# €1 @ ] Yd iE9 6�'ST 5 i�lliGi IYgg3 W3W1}] e Y�W��i g�K , yy6 ��$a?'u:bled' e �y C �31 3 e a £a �ye SA w� F Q FV act_ a ., E U U U y I WI oil 3nN3AV voun iex EXHIBIT I E6-E8Pg33 ./ / .} } [; / . \ CD/ !/ `k _ �\ !!! |! ,,,.. � EXHIBIT J ARBORIST REPORT 4TH AND UTICA RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: 4TH & UTICA LP 515 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, Ca 90071 Prepared by: Steve F. Andresen Arborist Services 5516 Inspiration Drive Riverside, CA 92506 Date of Inspection: July 16, 2016 Date of Report: August 1, 2016 EXHIBIT K E6-E8 Pg35 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF WORK....................................................................................Page 1 FINDINGS & CONCLUSION.................................................................Pages 2 - 3 LETTER GRADE LEGEND...........................................................................Page 4 TREESURVEY.....................................................................................Pages 5 - 1 1 SITE MAP WITH TREEE LOCATIONS ..........................................................Page 12 TREEIMAGES...................................................................................Pages 13 - 17 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS...............................................Page 18 E6-E8 Pg36 4rh & Utica Prepared by Steve F. Andresen August 1, 2016 Page 1 SCOPE OF WORK: The scope of this assignment is to give a comprehensive overall report of the existing mature trees using guidelines established by the International Society of Arboriculture and the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: ■ On -site visit and inspection of one hundred twenty eight (128) existing mature trees located at Fourth Street and Utica Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California • The criteria is established by the City of Ranch Cucamonga as per the tree removal permit application. ■ Identify the tree common name and botanical name. ■ Provide general specifications: caliper, approximate height and width. ■ Provide comments as to current health and condition of each tree surveyed. • Trees numbered using aluminum tree tags. E6-E8 Pg37 4th & Utica Prepared by Steve F. Andresen August 1, 2016 Page 2 FINDINGS: On July 16, 2016, inspections were conducted to survey the location and condition of the existing trees on the property located at the corner of Fourth Street and Utica Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The property on inspection was a parking lot with the mature trees growing in the strip planting areas at the borders of the property, and planters in the parking areas. The location looked to have been empty for some time with cracked asphalt, broken planters, weeds and all irrigation turned off or removed. Many trees are in a stressed condition due to lack of irrigation water and maintenance. Trees have been cut down and vandalized. Note: There are four (4) heritage trees located on the.property measuring Twenty (20) Inches or greater in caliper width. These heritage trees are marked on the attached tree.survey. CONCLUSION: Due to the site conditions many trees are stressed and in poor condition compared to the average maintained landscape trees. Carrot Wood Trees, Liquidambar are the two species showing the most decline. The Canary pines and African sumac onsite have withstood the site conditions because they are better at with standing draught conditions. Below is an overview of main landscape trees onsite and their general condition and health. E6-E8 Pg38 4th & Utica Prepared by Steve F. Andresen August 1, 2016 Page 3 Canary Island Pine - Pinus canariensis There are forty (40) Pines onsite in good to average condition. This pine is native to the Canary Islands and once established is very drought tolerant. These pines are showing very little stress at the time of inspection and have endured the dry unmaintained site conditions. African Sumac - Rhus lancea There are thirty (30) Sumac onsite in average condition for the species. This also a drought tolerant tree that can withstand very low soil moisture once established. The Sumacs are growing along the border of the property next door so they may be receiving incremental watering from that properties irrigation system. Carrot Wood - Cupaniopsis anacardioides There are twenty six (26) Carrot Wood trees onsite in varying condition and healthy. Carrot Woods are native to Australia and when established are drought tolerant and will grow in almost and soil condition. The majority of trees are stressed with die back due to the site drought conditions. Several have been cut down midway up the trunk with an axe. The reason for this happening is not known other than vandalism. The trees have regrown from being cut down with mass sucker growth to form a large upright bush. Several of these were not counted in the report as they are past any type of reconstruction that would make a proper structured tree. Other trees on site are Ornamental Pear, Crepe Myrtle and Liquidambar in small numbers. Their current condition and health grade will be listed on the attached spread sheet contained in this report. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's criteria as outlined in Chapter 17.16.080 of the development code, the attached spread sheet made part of this report hereto, identifies each tree and provides specifications such as height, width, and trunk caliper. A letter grading system is sued to describe tree current health and aesthetic quality as well as comments as necessary. E6-E8 Pg39 4th & Utica Prepared by Steve F. Andresen August 1, 2016 Page 4 LETTTER GRADE LEGEND: • "A" - Outstanding condition: Trees with an "A" grade will have excellent trunk and branch structure, vigorous new growth and healthy leaf color. • "B" - Good condition: Trees with a "B" grade will have good trunk and branch structure with some slight defects that will not adversely affect the tree long term condition. Leaf color and general health are good. • "C" - Average condition: Most trees growing in a landscape setting will be in average condition. Trees may have branching and trunk defects from improper pruning and maintenance. In general letter "C" grade trees are healthy and will continue to grow in the landscape. • "D" - Below average condition: Tree with a "D" grade will have poor trunk and branch structure, limb and leaf die back with stunted growth and overall plant stress. • "E" - Severe decline that should be removed: look healthy from a distance but will have defects warranting removal. Some grade "E" trees may major trunk or structural E6-E8 Pg40 Tree Survey E6-E8 Pg41 4Th St. Utica Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, California Tree Survey ID # SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT FEET SPREAD FEET CALIPER INCHES HEALTH GRADE AESTHETIC GRADE HERITAGE TREE COMMENTS I Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 25 17 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 2 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 40 20 17 C C Average to good condition for no Irrigation or care. 3 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 20 20 C C X Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 4 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 20 18 C C Average to goad condition for no irrigation or care. 5 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 20 17 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 6 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 30 25 19 C C Average to good condition for no ini otion or care. 7 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 1 20 13.5 C C lAverage to good condition for no irrigation or care. 8 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 24 1 17 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 9 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 60 25 17 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 10 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 20 13.5 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. I 1 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 18 14 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 12 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 15 11 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 13 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 55 25 17 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 14 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 28 22 C C X Avera a to good condition for no irrigation or care. 15 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 60 20 22 C C X Avera a to good condition for no irrigation or care. 16 lPinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 25 17 C C lAverage to good condition for no irrigation or care. 17 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 20 17 C C Avero a to good condition for no irrigation or care. 18 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 23 17 C C Average to good condition for no Irrigation or care. 19 Pinus conarensts CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 20 16.5 C C Slight trunk lean. Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 20 Pinus conariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 60 25 1 19 1 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. Prepared by: Steve F. Andresen 8/7/2016 4Th St. Utica Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, California Tree Survey ID # SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT FEET SPREAD FEET CALIPER INCHES HEALTH GRADE AESTHETIC GRADE HERITAGE TREE COMMENTS 21 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 55 18 15 C C Average to good condition for no Irrigation or care. 22 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 55 25 19 C C Average to good condition for no Irrigation or care. 23 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 45 28 16.5 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 24 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 60 25 19 C C Average to good condition for no ini afion or care. 25 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 25 21.5 C C X Avera a to good condition for no irrigation or care. 26 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 25 16 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 27 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE. 35 20 1 13 C C. Average to good condition for no Irrigation or care. 28 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 55 25 IS C C Slight tunk lean. Tree grovAng over steal cable. 29 Pinvs canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 55 25 14.5 C D Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 30 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 65 20 18 C C Double leader in top 1/3 of pines structure. 31 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 60 25 16 C C Average to good condition for no Irrigation or care. 32 lPinus conoriensfs CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 15 1 12.5 C D I Narrow one sided growth due to close planting. 33 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 25 16.5 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 34 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 40 28 16 C C Average to good condition for no ini afion or care. 35 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 55 18 12.5 C C Average to good condition for no irri afion or care. 36 Pinvs canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 50 20 14 C C Average to good condition for no ini ation or care. 37 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 20 18 1 15 D D Topped for power line clearance. 38 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 20 20 18.5 D D Topped for power line clearance. 39 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 1 25 25 14 D D Topped for power line clearance. 40 Pinus canariensis CANARY ISLAND PINE 1 25 25 16.5 1 D D Topped for power line clearance. Prepared by: Steve F. Andresen 8/1/2016 m rn to 00 -o 4Th St. Utica Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, California Tree Survey ID ff SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT FEET SPREAD FEET CALIPER INCHES HEALTH GRADE AESTHETIC GRADE HERITAGE TREE COMMENTS 41 Oleo euro a OLIVE 25 25 11 E E Poor structural condition due to large trunk losses. 42 Oleo europa OLIVE 18 18 30.5 C C Multi trunk form. 6 trunks measured to estimate caliper. 43 Oleo europa OLIVE 20 30 40 C C Multi trunk form. 5 trunks measured to estimate caliper. A4 Plateaus acerfolia LONDON PLANE TREE 16 10 5 C C Average condition for no irrigation or care. 45 Platanus acerfolia LONDON PLANE TREE 12 9 6 E E Tree cut off and has regrown as multi stem. Poor structural condition. 46 Platanus acerfolia LONDON PLANE TREE 13 9 3.5 C D Some die back due to low soil moisture 47 Platanus acerfolia LONDON PLANE TREE 18 1 13 5 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 48 Plafanus acerfolia LONDON PLANE TREE 20 18 6 C C Average to 2ood condition for no irrigation or care. 49 Plafanus acerfolia LONDON PLANE TREE 18 12 5.5 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 50 Platanus acerfolia LONDON PLANE TREE 15 9 3 C C Average to goodcondition for no ir6 ation or care. 51 Platanus acerfolia LONDON PLANE TREE 20 16 1 6 C C Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 52 La erstromia indica CRAPE MYRTLE 11 7 3 1 D D lPoor condition due to low soil moisture. 53 Phoenix dactalifero DATE PALM 16 C C- Average to good condition for no irrigation or care. 54 La erstromia indica CRAPE MYRTLE 12 9 4.5 c C Average condition. 55 La erstromia indica CRAPE MYRTLE 12 1 10 4 C C Average condition. 56 La erstromia indica CRAPE MYRTLE 12 9 4 C C Average condition. 57 La erstromia indica CRAPE MYRTLE 12 9 4.5 C C Average condition. 58 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 18 18 9.5 C C Trunk leaning with staking damage. 59 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 18 20 9.5 C C Trunk lean due to heavy canopy. 60 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 17 20 9.6 C C Trunk lean due to heavy canopy, Structural issues. 8/1/2016 Prepared by: Steve F. Andresen m rn m tb v to A to 4Th St. Utica Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, California Tree Survey ID H SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT FEET SPREAD FEET CALIPER INCHES HEALTH GRADE AESTHETIC GRADE HERITAGE TREE COMMENTS 61 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 17 18 7 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 62 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 18 16 8 C D Trunk lean due to heavy canopy. 63 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 17 18 8.5 C D Trunk lean due to heavy canopy. 64 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 13 15 D D Broken off, regenerated growth from break. Poor structural condition. 65 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 18 18 8 C C Trunk lean due to heavy canopy. 66 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 17 16 7.5 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 67 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 18 16 10 C D Curved leaning trunk due to heavy canopy. 68 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 16 1 14 8 C D Trunk lean due to heavy canopy, 69 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 17 16 1 8 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 70 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 16 16 8 E E Large broken limb, poor structural condition. 71 Koelreuteria bipinnata CHINESE FLAME TREE 13 8 3.5 C- C- Stunted condition due to low soil moisture. 72 lKoelreuteria bipinnata CHINESE FLAME TREE 13 8 3.5 C- C- Stunted condition due to low soil moisture. 73 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 13 13 6 c C Average condition for species and site conditions. 74 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 11 9 1 5 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. r 75 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 12 9 4 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 76 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 9 8 4.5 D D Stunted condition due to low soil moisture. 77 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 12 10 5.5 D D Curved leaning trunk due to heavy canopy. Tree. cut off and regenerated canopy. 78 Koelreuteria bi innato CHINESE FLAME TREE 9 5 2 D D Poor condition and health due to tow soil moisture. 79 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 14 9 6 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 80 Rhus lancea IAFRICAN SUMAC 10 1 8 1 4 1 C I C Stunted condition due to low soil molsture. 8/1/2016 Prepared by: Steve F. Andresen m on 00 rp v LD an 01 4Th St. Utica Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, California Tree Survey ID 9 SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT FEET SPREAD FEET CALIPER INCHES HEALTH GRADE AESTHETIC GRADE HERITAGE TREE COMMENTS 81 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 16 14 6.5 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 82 Koelreuterio bipinnata CHINESE FLAME TREE 9 5 2.25 D D Poor condition and health due to low soil moisture. 83 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 12 9 4 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 84 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 11 9 4 C C Stunted condition due to low soil moisture. 85 Koelreutedo bipinnata CHINESE FLAME TREE 11 7 2.5 C D Poor condition due to low soil moisture. 86 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 11 9 5.5 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 87 Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 9 6 3 C C Stunted condition due to low soil moisture. 88 Koelreuteria bipinnata CHINESE FLAME TREE 12 b 1 2.5 C C Poor condition due to low soil moisture. 89 Koeireuteria bipinnata CHINESE FLAME TREE 12 6 2.5 C C Poor condition due to low soil moisture. 90 Cu anio sis anocardioi CARROT WOOD 25 25 12 D C Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 91 Cu aniopsis anocardici CARROT WOOD 18 20 11 1 D C Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 92 Cu anio sis anocardioi CARROT WOOD 18 20 10 D C Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 93 lCuponiopsis onacordioi CARROT WOOD 20 20 12 E E Cut off mid -way up trunk and regrown to multi form. 94 Cu aniopsis anocardioi CARROT WOOD 30 25 IS d C Average condition for species and site conditions. 95 Cu aniopsis onacardia CARROT WOOD 25 25 1 D D Cut off mid -way up trunk and regrown to multi form. Poor structure. 96 Liquidambarstyrocifluo AMERICAN SWEET GUM 40 20 14 E E lHeavy die back due to droughty site conditions. 97 Li uidambor styrociflua AMERICAN SWEET GUM 40 18 12 E E Heavy die back due to droughty site conditions. 98 Uquidambarstyrocifluo AMERICAN SWEET GUM 25 14 12 E E Heavy the back due to droughty site conditions. 99 Liquidambarstyrocifluo AMERICAN SWEET GUM 30 25 13 E E I Heavy die back due to droughty site conditions. 100 Liquidambarsl rociflua AMERICAN SWEET GUM 30 25 12 E E I Heavy die back due to droughty site conditions. 811=6 ?spored by: Steve F. And.,.n m rn m 00 to V 4Th St. Utica Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, California Tree Survey ID H SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT FEET SPREAD FEET CALIPER INCHES HEALTH GRADE AESTHETIC GRADE HERITAGE TREE COMMENTS 101 Liquidambarstyrocifluo AMERICAN SWEET GUM 50 25 14.5 E E Heavy die back due to droughty site conditions. 102 Cu aniopsis onacardiol CARROT WOOD 15 17 8.5 C C Average condition forspecies and site conditions. 103 Cu onfopsis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 13 15 6 D D Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 104 Cu onto sis onacardiol CARROT WOOD 16 16 7 D C Avera a condition for species and site conditions. 105 Cupanio sis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 12 12 6 E E Heavy die back due to droughty site conditions. 106 Cu aniopsis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 16 18 E E Cut off mid -way up trunk and regrown to multi form. 107 Cu anio sis onacardiol CARROT WOOD 12 10 5 E E Cut off mid -way up trunk and regrown to multi form. 108 Cu aniopsis onacardiol CARROT WOOD 17 15 7 1 C C I Average condition for species and site conditions. 109 Cu aniopsis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 16 1 18 10 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 110 Cu - aniopsis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 14 16 7 C C Average condition forspecies and site conditions. 111 Cu anio sis onacardiol CARROT WOOD 14 16 7.5 D D Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 112 Cu anio sis anocordfoi CARROT WOOD 16 16 7 1 D D Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 113 Cu anio sis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 16 16 6.5 E E Heavy die back due to droughty site conditions. 114 lCuportioasis anacardoo CARROT WOOD 18 18 7 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 115 Cu oniopsis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 16 16 8 D D Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 116 Cu aniopsis onacardiol CARROT WOOD 17 IB 10 D E Large limb loss with trunk damage. 117 Cu anio sis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 20 25 13 D D Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 118 Cu anio sis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 1B 18 7 1 D D Stressed condition due to low soil moisture water and site conditions. 119 Cupanio sis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 18 18 8 C D Average condition for species and site conditions. 120 Cu anio sis anacardioi CARROT WOOD 17 18 7 C C Average condition for species and site conditions. 8/1/2016 Prepared by: Steve F. Andresen 4Th St. Utica Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, California Tree Survey ID H SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT SPREAD CALIPER HEALTH AESTHETIC HERITAGE COMMENTS FEET FEET INCHES GRADE GRADE TREE 121 Cuponfb sisanocardio CARROT WOOD 20 20 of measurec E E Cut off mid -way up trunk and regrown to multi form. 122 Pistocia chinensis CHINESE PISTACHE 15 16 7 D E Low branch form, heavily pruned. 123 Plyrus calleryona ORNAMENTAL PEAR 20 18 12 C C Maintained landscape area, good condition. 124 Pyrus colleryona ORNAMENTAL PEAR 20 16 12 C C Maintained landscape area, good condition. 125 Pyrus calleryono ORNAMENTAL PEAR 20 16 9 C C Maintained landscape area, good condition. 126 Pyrus colleryona ORNAMENTAL PEAR 20 16 10 C C ]Maintained Maintained landscape area, good condition. 127 P rus cc teryona ORNAMENTAL PEAR 1 20 18 11 C C landscape area, good condition. 128 Pyrus calleryona ORNAMENTAL PEAR 20 18 1 13 C C tMaintained landscape area, good condition. LEMER GRADE LEGEND: A - Outstanding condition: Trees will have excellent trunk & branch structure, vigorous new growth & healthy leaf color. B - Good condition:. Trees will have good trunk and branch structure with some slight defects that will not adversely affect the tree long term condition. Leaf color & general health are good. C - Average condition: Most trees growing in a landscape setting will be in average condition. Trees may have branching & trunk defects from improper pruning & maintenance. In general, trees are healthy & will continue to grow in the landscape. D - Below average condition: Tree will have poor trunk & branch structure, limb & leaf die back with stunted growth & overall plant stress. E-Severe decline that should be removed: Trees may look healthy from a distance but will have major trunk or structural defects warranting removal. Prepared by: Steve F. Andresen 8/1/2016 Site Map with Tree Locations E6-E8Pg49 Tree Images E6-E8Pg51 W,Tf,%� "-to Aii" --- m Sumac with curved trunk. Most in this planting are curved from wind. E6-E8 Pg53 a -NMI L4.;Aff- Average C( ; t re,l. IMMOLI Carrot Wood broken off grown into multi form. E6-E8 Pg55 Liquidambar at Utica Avenue parking entrance. E6-E8 Pg56 4+h & Utica Prepared by Steve F. Andresen August 1, 2016 Page 18 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS I am a certified arborist in California # WC 2170 with the International Society of Arboriculture and qualified to make this report. My inspection was a visual examination and based on the condition of the trees at the time of inspection. Steve F. Andresen QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Questions or comments can be directed to: Steve F. Andresen / Arborist Services 5516 Inspiration Drive Riverside, CA 92506 ISA-WC 2170 (951) 288-3798 sa.arboristservicesQamail.com Date: August 1, 2016 Arborist WC 2170 E6-E8 Pg57 Without Proposed Change Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development Standards of the Sub -Area 18 Speck Plan address eight factors which include: • General Provisions • Master Plan Requirements • Minimum Parcel Size • Setback Requirements • Landscape Requirements • Parking and Loading Requirements • Interim Uses • Performance Standards • Planning Area IX Recreational Amenities Table 5-6 summarizes the application of basic development standards on a planning area basis, including minimum parcel size, landscape area requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and performance standards. The setback requirements are determined in accordance with the street classification and particular side yard and rear yard conditions. TABLE 5-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY Ptanni�Area Standards 11 1V V VI V11 VBI IX f X Maiar uin Parcel Size fAcres) 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miaantan Percentage of Landscape Area (% of Net Lot Area) 15 15 15 15 10 10 31 10 Perfomnnce Slandard 1. hocfulo) A A A A B B B B Maximum Floor Area Hatto (I-AHV U.a5 0,35 0.3b 0.3h 01 to 0.316 0.561 0.35 I leFidunflal Density 1421 24-30 24-30 dw'ac NUI-2 Nhete a NAGI is nrzwlopetf, the maximum allowable FAR Im are Planning Area can increase to FAR 01- Me I'AR lea the hrltei. II the, onlire PlaimiruA areo. to nol lath for such ime, can exceed) the 0.7 FAR as long m the arias planning area does not exceed 0.7 FAR as shown in the conceptual Manor Plan. Aurae 201a 5 2c Deue9opment Guidelines and Standards EXHIBIT L E6—E8 Pg58 With Proposed Change Rancho Cucamonga [ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development Standards of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan address eight factors which include: At General Provisions • Master Plan Requirements Minimum Parcel Size Setback Requirements • Landscape Requirements • Parking and Loading Requirements • Interim Uses • Performance Standards • Planning Area IX Recreational Amenities Table 5-6 summarizes the application of basic development standards on a planning area basis, including minimum parcel size, landscape area requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and performance standards. The setback requirements are determined in accordance with the street classification and particular side yard and rear yard conditions. TABLE 5-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY Planning Area Standards II IV V VI VII Vill Ix x Mulimuln Panel Sin: iAcres) 1 i 1 I I t 1 1 Minimum Percentage of Landscape Area (11 of Net Lol Area) 15 1-5 15 15 10 10 31 10 Pe�torrnance, SIamA�rrl (S,;tudulu) A A A A R 6 8 6 Maximum rlonr Arna Haim ;l-AHV 1.1.3b 0.36 0.50 U.3h 0,10 U.36 0,561 0.15 I losakrnlial Density 14 21 24-3C 24-30 du'-,, Nola: where a NA01 IS developed, the maximurn alltnvahle FAR for 1he Planning Area can increase. to FAR 0.7. Me 17AR for the hot6. ii the enure planning area ks rwt ased tnr wGh use, can cexrtrd [he 0.7 FAH is brlg as the entud planning area does not exceed 0.7 FAR as shown to the conceptual Master Plan .tune 2018 ?--28 Development Guidelines and Standards EXHIBIT M E6—E8Pg59 Charles Joseph Associates PUBLICIPRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES 1.%%'y� O'c RAN Cyp C(ICq410A December 27, 2016 JAN3101) RFCkI D . P /�,pp�A, Re: January 9, 2017 Community Meeting regarding IDS Properties LAI N�N6, Design Review DRC2016-00670 - A request to construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 & 90. Related Files: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931. Dear Property Owner: This letter is to invite you to a Community Meeting concerning the above referenced high quality project which will be a 232,058 square foot Warehouse/Office project located on the NE corner of 4th Street & Utica, Rancho Cucamonga. This meeting will give us the opportunity to share with you our plans for this quality project that we believe will be a positive addition to your neighborhood and our community, and the opportunity to discuss the specifics of this project and to answer any questions that you may have with regard to this project. We appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule on Monday, January 9tn 2017 at 6:00 P.M. to join us at the Courtyard by Marriot located at 11525 Mission Vista right behind BJ's Restaurant on 4th Street. Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting will be held in the Meeting Room 1, and the project team will be available to answer any questions that you may have at this meeting. Light refreshments will be served. We are looking forward to meeting with you. Should you have any questions or need any additional information in advance of this meeting, please feel free to give me a call at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, WNems, Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Enclosures cc: Dominick Perez, City Planning Office909.481o1822 Fax 909o32002296 Archibald Business Park • 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D o Rancho Cucamonga, CA • 91730 A CALIPORNIA C0RP0ItA71ON EXHIBIT N E6-E8 Pg60 VIMO� -rr �1®� 1mi = ?_1- = _ _ 4m= am -1. _ -= m rorm no m �f-� rl p Fr r, r.7 rn a 00 w A LU 4th Street & Utica Avenue AL CITYOF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA IDS ............ �zb No. 11336.00 CONCEPTUAL COLORED ELEVATIONS 1031.2016 I ljaftuviu,�wu= I, ai �; DESIDN KEY NOTES: �N 7 wa. nnar¢trnvr e �iYXT- Ci \ne uin - ,. cnvrnr �) ' gnmCuv2wv r, may... I --.— •eQ::. U �e+xi-.. in .,,Ygttwewetlty _. _.— , }i u r(Ku1DnOmiMrK¢xni[kYAliln[r1Y.41'I1E4 — O .rruvn p141.[ wNlurM1.i6.--SiFm. q fla0rOr4tCMa�O.Tn — w f fF YCS o011Y(M.:I 4 f• LiW+.YElOSEFfY� alN.'NL '_ �• �i trvmlrtrrwrus-.w...uulwd�nv �6 3� 4 ATH STREET 5rgiexcraru�ct>?R= <yl,P. ¢6� wn�`.yLLc�� .ecw..r� aac>_. unmr awr n ��eln�x.Rn [5,+nnrl erasw::rer... yr er, rann gid I ORRRGENnJi'A'-(YJIDOOR RRE.O(hREA 3 PLANTING LEGEND SYNyCPL 3REEI4�!F GIY. WVCPIS a`„+ waLL3ltIX.w,\"iS0-ne ue vi L .NE 1 wwm— O� VY.. a,»rnenet t uaav,a\.wv s r.,n sxnuP NRM§ rrvcols s2 .9K+'evt'mereneu!..iw Y L33�r�_ �W 4.oPinu,vw e v J �mNwt �V�R16xflNP YA99 XANE II i4 �- YRKOL6 Yi03inC•nrt,AaM Wtw _ J. , YS O4 eGa. Otua9Re. -- -- SP:FNr3Y LR�aNM!E. u LeCOM[N+ wman�ry[a\�� as Umusrc: Lwe{';jpylltl .es.a...rvw.�a[•„�.at a mr\an Ye(n irCa omtW!n4r.an,.SneY'+irn ,.at CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN MICA AVE. AND 4Tii STREET 14ANCII)CU(:RblONG —CA 11—R OEX-1NP. N to m a c W tD w THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA Cv�aON GAA JANUARY 17, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Regular Members: Ray Wimberly X Rich Macias X Candyce Burnett _ Donald Granger X Alternates: Lou Munoz Rich Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca Additional Staff Present: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner II II. PUBLIC COMMENT III This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. 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 limited to five minutes per individual. II III. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS III 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. 7.00 p.m. None 1 of 2 F X H 1 R'T 0 E6-E8 Pg63 0 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA A HO ONM JANUARY 17, 2017 A. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00670-CHARLESJOSEPHASSOCIATES -A request to construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and 4th Street - APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 & 90. Related Files: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931. II IV. ADJOURNMENT III 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 11 with the Planning Department for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 5, 2017, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. A. DRC2016-00670 — Committee recommended approval and forwarded project to PC. 7:15 p.m. 2 of 2 E6-E8 Pg64 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Dominick Perez January 17, 2017 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00670—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES —A requestto construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and 4th Street — APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 & 90. Related Files: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931. Design Parameters: The project site is comprised of five (5) vacant parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). The site is approximately 585 feet (east to west) by approximately 869 feet (north to south). The site is vacant and is bound on the east, north and northwest by office development that occupy businesses such as Inland Empire Health Plan, CUNA Brokerage Services, and CorVel Corporation. To the west of the site, across Utica Avenue, is an undeveloped vineyard. To the south and southwest of the site, across 4th Street within the City of Ontario, are two apartment complexes (Vintage Apartments and Camden Landmark Apartments). This site once contained an industrial building and parking lot that was part of a large industrial complex occupied by General Dynamics. The building has since been removed and the parking lot and on -site landscape have not been maintained. The zoning of the abutting properties to the north is Planning Area IV and east Planning Area V within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The zoning of the properties to the west is Industrial Park (IP) District. The zoning of the property to the south is Urban Residential District (Ontario Center Specific Plan), which is within the jurisdiction of the City of Ontario. The applicant proposes to construct an industrial logistics building with a floor area of 232,058 square feet. The building will consist of two (2) office areas (26,700 square feet) and a warehouse area (205,358 square feet). The offices will be located at the southwest and northeast corners of the building. The dock loading area, with 33 dock doors, will be located along the west side of the building. There will be a trailer storage area with 34 trailer parking spaces located adjacent to the loading dock. The dock and trailer storage areas will be screened by a concrete tilt -up wall of 8 feet in height that will be architecturally compatible to the proposed building. There will be two (2) employee break area located near each office. Each will be a minimum of 500 square feet in area, as required by the Development Code. The building is required to have 179 passenger vehicle parking stalls; 255 parking stalls will be provided. Landscape coverage is 11.5 percent (59,428 square feet). Access to the site will be provided via three (3) driveways, two along Utica Avenue and one along 4th Street. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction and will contain a combination of blue reflective vision and spandrel glazing, clear anodized mullions and metal canopies. The south elevation, which will be visible along 4th Street, contains a significant amount of glazing. Downspouts will not be visible from the exterior on any elevation of the building as they will be routed through the interior of the building. The building will have a height of 40 feet and 3 inches. The exterior of the building will be painted a combination of various shades of white and gray. It should be noted that the applicant is also proposing to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan (ELSP) to increase the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within Planning Area 5. Currently, the ELSP limits the maximum FAR at .35. The project contains an FAR of .449 (232,058 square feet / 515,690 square feet). This component of the entitlement application will require a recommendation be made by the Planning Commission, with review and final action by the City Council. E6—E8 Pg65 DRC COMMENTS DRC2016-00670 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES January 17, 2017 Page 2 Staff Comments: Overall, staff is supportive of the design of the project. Because of the site's adjacency to existing office development to the east, north and northwest, as well as the site's proximity to 4th Street and the Haven Avenue Overlay, staff concludes that there is a need to put special attention on the architecture of the proposed building. This feedback was provided to the applicant following the initial submittal of the application. Since then, the applicant revised the elevations and resubmitted the current design of the building. Staff notes that the applicant has made significant improvements to the building's design, particularly along 4th Street. With the exception of the current FAR requirements discussed in the ELSP, the project is in compliance with all other development standards, including setbacks, parking and building height. Major 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: Although staff is supportive of the design of the building, the Empire Lakes Specific Plan and Development Code require the building to have a minimum of two primary building materials. Acceptable materials include concrete, sandblasted concrete, textured block, brick, granite, or similar materials. Aside from the concrete tilt up panels, all other proposed materials qualify as secondary building materials (i.e., glass, metal awnings). Therefore, to meet this requirement, staff recommends providing textured concrete along various sections of the building. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line -of -sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on -site to match the building. 2. All ground -mounted equipment, including utility boxes, transformers, and back -flow devices, shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on - center. All ground -mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed otherwise by the Fire Department. 3. The employee break area shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on center with minimum dimensions of 4 inches by 12 inches. Each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural design and finishes/trim used on the building. The trellis shall be painted to match the building, and tables, chairs/benches, and waste receptacles shall be provided. E6—E8 Pg66 DRC COMMENTS DRC2016-00670 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES January 17, 2017 Page 3 4. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. 5. All walls, including retaining walls, exposed to public view shall be constructed of decorative masonry blocks, i.e. slump stone, split -face, or have a decorative finish such as stucco textured to match a concrete tilt up wall. Staff Recommendation: With the Secondary Issue addressed to the satisfaction of the Committee, staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the project and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee briefly discussed the project and staffs comments regarding two primary building materials. Staff explained that the applicant has been working with staff to provide the required second primary building material. A copy of the architectural elevations were provided to the Committee showing the placement of the material. The committee recommended approval with no additional issues and forwarded to Planning Commission. Staff Planner: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner Members Present: Commissioner, Ray Wimberly; Commissioner, Lou Munoz; Senior Planner, Donald Granger Additional Staff Present: Dat Tran, Assistant Planner E6—E8 Pg67 Mca Lintbmdm � Pl rm x l� 3` N \Aes 111 JArC2 12 PlanningArcs i CP�` �Arcs la is ac. � _ f_ planning � g 19 ac. 21 ra 29 me. I - t PlannLng Pianntng ` 64 1 s or— iG ac l YI �i P1aMFng c I Ara v gG 29 ac Ind Punning OJ✓°, p mnVR �!_ a f , .1! A a � 24 ec 22 r- Note; Thh tpura ra mmrft Uia MWWK grgMW Lard Use Plan for Sub - Area 19 and may be eubjad to Mum mAnarnarda andlor m4dit&W a. Rotor 10 Sed1m /.2 Land Use Plon, TabN 5-1 SaarlmaryLand Use by Pla,uwV Area and Table 5-2LJnd Use Type pelirwho m for "m to land Um pam ftd In ptanntng areas ear son a saa QPlanning Area S fl9,V 4-4 Conceptual Land Use Plan a . o• a I M n.. ;"o. t, . t ass EXHIBIT P E6—E8 Pg68 Form A Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, PO Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 916/445-0613 I SCH # Project Title: DRC2016-00670 and DRC2016-00931 Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Contact Person: Dominick Perez Street Address: 10500 Civic Center Drive Phone: 909-477-2750 x4315 City: Rancho Cucamonga Zip: 91730 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — County: San Bernardino — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Location: — — — County: San Bernardino City/Nearest Community: Rancho Cucamonga Cross Streets: 4th Street and Utica Avenue Zip Code: 91730 Total Acres: 11.86 Assessors Parcel No. 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89. 90 Section: 13 Twp. is Range: 7W Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-15, CA-210 Waterways: N/A Airports: Ontario Airport Railways: BNSF Schools: Rancho Cucamonga Middle School — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Document Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CEQA: ❑ NOP ❑ Supplement/Subsequent EIR NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons (Prior SCH No.) ❑ EA ❑ Final Document R Neg Dec ❑ Other ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other ❑ Drat EIR — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑ FONSI — — — — — — — Local Action Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan R Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) R Other Specific Plan Amend — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Development Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD El Office: S9.fi. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial: Sgft. Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral R Industrial: Sgft. 232,05E Acres 11.84 Employees Unknow ❑ Power: Type Watts_ ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type ❑ Other: Funding (approx.): Federal $ N/A State $ N/A Total $ N/A Project Issues Discussed in Document: ❑ AesthetieNisual ❑ Agricultural Land R Air Quality R ArcheologicallHistorical ❑ Coastal Zone ❑ Drainage/Absorption ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Fiscal ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard R Geologic/Seismic ❑ Minerals R Noise ❑ Population/Housing Balance ❑ Public Services/Facilities ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Schools/Universities ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Sewer Capacity R Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Traffic/Circulation ❑ Vegetation R Water Quality ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Wetland/Riparian R Wildlife ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Landuse ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Other — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Vacant/Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan/Mixed Use — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Description: A proposal to construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains an abandoned parking lot and a vacant paddocated �y�+ tt�p��'nn area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, , ��, $4 J0. 23 Gw H 1®1T 0 E6—E8 Pg69 Reviewing Agencies Checklist _Resources Agency _Boating & Waterways _Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy _Colorado River Board _Conservation Fish & Game _Forestry & Fire Protection _Office of Historic Preservation Parks & Recreation _Reclamation Board S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation & Housing Aeronautics _California Highway Patrol _CALTRANS District # _Department of Transportation Planning (headquarters) Housing & Community Development Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare Health Services State & Consumer Services General Services _OLA (Schools) Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date Signature Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Address: City/State/Zip: Contact: Phone: Applicant Charles Joseph Associates Address: 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D City/State/Zip: Rancho Cucamonga/CA/91730 Form A, continued KEY S =Document sent by lead agency X = Document sent by SCH V = Suggested distribution Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board _California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants _S WRCB: Delta Unit _SWRCB: Water Quality _SWRCB: Water Rights _Regional WQCB # Youth & Adult Corrections Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission _Native American Heritage Commission _Public Utilities Commission _Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy _State Lands Commission _Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Other Ending Date Date For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: Phone: 9( O9 ) 481-1822 Pg70 PrintForm Summary Form for Electronic Document Submittal Form F Lead agencies may include 15 hardcopies of this document when submitting electronic copies of Environmental Impact Reports, Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, or Notices of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse (SCH). The SCH also accepts other summaries, such as EIR Executive Summaries prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. Please include one copy of the Notice of Completion Form (NOC) with your submission and attach the summary to each electronic copy of the document. SCH #: Project Title: Lead Agency: Contact Email: Phone Number: Project Location: city Project Decription (Proposed actions, location, and/or consequences). review of a proposal to construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a property mprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains an ,andoned parking lot and a vacant pad located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the ,rtheast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APNs: 0210-082-78, -79, -84, -89 and -90. The project also involves a :)posal to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 thin Planning Area 5 of the subject specific plan and a request for a tree removal permit for on -site trees. Related Files: asign Review DRC2016-00670, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 and Tree Removal Permit Identify the project's significant or potentially significant effects and briefly describe any proposed mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that effect. Biological Resource - Nesting Bird and owl surveys Cultural Resources - Protocols if and when cultural resources are discovered during project development Geology and Soils - Protocols for water and soil treatment during project development Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Greenhouse gas reduction protocols Hydrology and Water Quality - Water quality (WQMP) protocols Noise - Exterior and interior noise reduction measures Tribal Cultural Resources - Treatment Plan and/or Discovery and Monitoring Plan Revised September 2011 E6—E8Pg71 continued If applicable, describe any of the project's areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies ana ine Provide a list of the responsible or trustee agencies for the project. agency E6—E8Pg72 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 DRC2016-00670, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671. Public Review Period Closes: May 24, 2017 Project Name: Project Applicant: Chuck Buquet Charles Joseph Associates 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Project Location (also see attached map): Northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue — APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 & 90. Project Description: A review of a proposal to construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad located within area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 & 90. The project also involves,a proposal to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to increase the allowable floor area ratio from .35 to .5 within Area 5 of the specific plan and a Tree Removal Permit to remove existing trees. FINDING This is to advise thatthe 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 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. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. Date of Determination Adopted By E6—E8Pg73 4S1 X t"1p cSkit "C — Haven Avenue - �C 1 i"i I 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) RANCHO (Please type orpdnt clearly using Ink Use the tab key to move from one fine to the next fine.) C,UCAMONGA Planning Department (9091477-2750 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 NOT BE 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 pedorrn work required to provide missing information. Application Numberforthe project to which this form pertains: Pa jecl Tide: Name B Address of project owner(s): Fourth and Utica LP 515 S Figueroa Street #1600, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Name B Address of developer or project sponsor: Fourth and Utica LP, 515 S. Figueroa Street, #1500, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Updated 4/1112013 Page 1 of 10 EG-E8 Pg75 Contact Person & Address: EM Charles Joseph Assciates, 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different !rem above): Same as above Telephone Number. 909-M-,1822 Information Indicated by an asterisk () is not required of non -construction CURS unless otherwise requested by staff. -1) Provide a full scale (8-112 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site tram the north, south, east, and west• views info 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): Fourth and Utica 4) Assessors Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 0210-082-78-0000, 79, 84, 89 and 90 -5) Gross Site Area (aclsq. A.): 11.84 -6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment orzone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): Updated 4111/2013 Page 2 of 10 E6—E8Pg76 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and othergovemmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: r:.MMM . T 9) Describe the physical selling of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stabilily, 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/orhydrologicstudies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The project site is relatively flat and was an asphalt parking lot. Nearly all of the property is covered with gravel and other fill materials, concrete Fragments and assorted construction debris. The remainder the property is an prior paved parking lot with light poles, concrete dividers and trees and shrubs are still present in the parking lot. Updaled 4I1112013 Page 3 of 10 E6-E8 Pg77 10) Describe the known cultural and. historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources oF�1, irmation (books, publishedreports and oral history): There are no known Cultural or Historical aspects to this site location. 11) Describe anynolse sources and theirlevels thatnow affect the site (aircraft, roadwaynoise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: Existing roadway noise and short term construction noise that will not adversely affect proposed use. 12) Describe the proposed project in 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 sheets) if necessary: New construction of a 232.058 square foot 2 dory warehouc_e huilding with a 10 000 cquarp foot mezzanine. 1 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type ofland use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity ofland use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): South -Multi Family Residential across Fourth Street o I iTrW_1:Fmr.rr. Updated 411112013 Page of 10 E6—E8 Pg78 0 0 14) Will the pmposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? The proposed project will serve as an enhancement to the surrounding area of the project. 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels effect adjacent properties and on -site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? Short term construction noise which will be mitigated as much as possible and will comply with all applicable noise control requirements. *16) Indicate proposed removals andlorreplacements of mature or scenic trees: Certified Arborist in California #WC 2170 with the International Society of Arboriculture, Dated August 1, 2016 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic watersuppfies) into which the site drains: 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clartfication, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at (909) 987-2591. A. Residential (gatfday) Peak use (gabDay) b. Commercial1nd. (gaUday/ac) 1750 _ Peak use (gaUminfac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ❑ Septic Tank SewerXX if septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation:(See AttachmentAforusageestimates). Forfurtherclarification,please contact the Cucamonga Valley WaterD/strict at (909) 987-2591. a. Residential (gailday) b. CommemiaUlnduskial (gaUdayfac) 3000— .Updated 4111/2013 Page 5 of 10 E6—E8 Pg79 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:O O 20) Numberof residential units., N/A Dalached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: NIA Attache d (tntikate whether units are rental orlorsale units): NIA 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Prices) $X to $ Rent (permonth) $ n/a to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: NIA 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 B: a. Elementary: NIA b. duniorHigh: MIA c. Senior High NIA COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL. AND INSTITUTIONAL FROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) orcommercial, industdel orinstituffonal uses: New construction for a speculative warehouse building with a 10,000 sf 21d floor mezzanine. Updated 4111/2013 Page 0 of 10 0 O 26) Total floor area of commercial, Industrial, orinstituffonal uses by type: 236,326 Total floor area including 2nd story 10,000 sf mezzanine. 27) indicate hours ofoperaffon: Normal Business Hours subject to City Business License Criteria 28) Number of employees Total: unknown at this time. Maximum Shift Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakdown ofandcipaled job classifications, Including wage and salary ranges, as well as an Indication of the rate of hire foreach classification (atfach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation ofthe 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 Qua* 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 theirabitily to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. All agencies contacted have indicated their ability to provide services. Updated 4/1112013 E6-E8 Pg81 Page 7 of 10 33) In the known history of this pro urly, has there been any use, storage, or dischaQof hazardous and/or toxic malariats? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but am not limited to PCBs; mdloacdve substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, offs, solvents, and othertiammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any ofthe above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, If known. None to our knowledge. 34) Kriffthe proposedpro*tfnvotvethe temporaryorlong-term use, storage, ordischargeofhazaniousandlortoxicmaterials, including but not limited to those examples fisted 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. No 35J 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 CanmisslonfPlanning Directorhearing; 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 ofmy ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented ate true andconed tot he best ofmy 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: 8-8-2016 By: Title: President Updated 411112013 Page 8 of 10 E6—E8 Pg82 0 0 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 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 E6—E8 Pg83 Q O 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)089.8541 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 4/1112013 Page 10 of 10 �M City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND Project File: Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671 3. Description of Project: A review of a proposal to construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APNs: 0210-082-78, -79, -84, -89 and -90. The project also involves a proposal to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the subject specific plan. Also included is a request for the removal of trees to allow for the construction of the building. 4. Project Sponsor Name and Address: Chuck Buquet Charles Joseph Associates 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: Mixed Use 6. Zoning: Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 5 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located on the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue, approximately 0.25-mile east of Haven Avenue. The project site consists of five (5) parcels, and when combined, are approximately 520 feet (east to west) by 860 feet (north to south) with a combined area of about 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). The frontage of three of the parcels (APNs: 0210-082-78, -89, and -90) along Utica Avenue contain street improvements, including paving, curb and gutter. The frontage of three of the parcels (APNs: 0210-082-78, -79, and -84) along 4th Street contain street improvements, including paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. There are some onsite, street -facing improvements along the overall street frontage of the project site including landscape, trees and an abandoned parking lot. There are no buildings onsite; it is currently vacant. The site is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,040 and 1,030 feet, respectively. The property is bound on the north and east by several parcels that are developed with multitenant office buildings containing parking and landscape improvements. To the south, across 4th Street, is the Camden Landmark Apartment complex within the City of Ontario. To the west, across Utica Avenue, is vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time. The zoning of the property and the property to the east is Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The zoning of the properties to the north is Planning Area 4 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The zoning of the property to the west is Industrial Park (IP) District. The zoning of the property to south is Urban Residential District (Ontario Center Specific Plan) in the City of Ontario. B. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga E6—E8 Pg85 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 2 Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Dominick Perez Associate Planner (909) 477-2750, extension 4315 dominick.perez@cityofrc.us 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) GLOSSARY — The following abbreviations are used in this report: CALEEMOD — California Emissions Estimator Model 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 PM10 — Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD — South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP — Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 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 ;) Biological Resources ;) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use & Planning Population & Housing Transportation/Traffic :) Mandatory Findings of DETERMINATION (x) Agricultural Resources (x) Cultural Resources () Hazards & Waste Materials () Mineral Resources () Public Services (x) Tribal Cultural Resources On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) Air Quality (x) Geology & Soils (x) Hydrology & Water Quality (x) Noise () Recreation () Utilities & Service Systems () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (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 proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg86 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 3 () 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) 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. Prepared By: Dominick Perez Date: April 5, 2017 Reviewed By: Mike Smith Date: April 12, 2017 Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg87 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 4 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Inco oratee Im act Impact 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to a scenic vista caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to a scenic resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. c) The site is located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue. The proposed project is a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains remnants of an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad. The surrounding properties are characterized by multitenant office buildings to the north and east, an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) to the south within the City of Ontario and vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time to the west. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project because the project will be compatible in use and design with the existing surrounding uses to the north of the site. This project was reviewed by-staff/the City Planner and is consistent with the Development Code and Rev 3-1-16 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 5 Less Than Signi(Icant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Mitigation Significant No ha act ncorporated Im act Im act Design Guidelines. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to a visual character or quality caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. d) The project would increase the number of onsite parking lot/security lighting within the immediate vicinity. The street frontage along 4th Street and Utica Avenue currently contains streetlights. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on the 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to substantial light or glare caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or () () Q (✓) 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? 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? Rev 3-1-16 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 6 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Inca oraled Impact Impact Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue. The proposed project is a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains remnants of an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad. The surrounding properties are characterized by multi - tenant office buildings to the north and east, an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) to the south within the City of Ontario and vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time to the 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to agricultural resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 at the northeast corner of 41h Street and Utica Avenue. The proposed project is a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8Pg90 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 7 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pctentiany Significant with MifigaUon Than Significant No Impact Incur orated Iraact Im act property comprised on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined Area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains remnants of an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad. The surrounding properties are characterized by multitenant office buildings to the north and east, an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) to the south within the City of Ontario and vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time to the west. There are no agricultural uses within one mile of the project site. Furthermore, there are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land. Therefore, there is no potential for conversion of forest land to a non -forest use. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to agricultural resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 () (✓) () ( ) 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 discussed in subsection b, the project would not exceed any air quality standards and 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. No impacts anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area Adoption of the amendment does not preclud e increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. the review by the City of any project Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg91 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 8 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im act located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to air quality caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PMio), fine particulate matter less than 2.6 (PM2.5) microns in diameter and lead. Among these pollutants, ozone and particulate matter (PMio and PM2.5) are considered regional pollutants while the others have more localized effects. In addition, the State of California has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (1-12S), 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. 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 regulates stationary sources of pollution within a 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 (PMto), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PM2.5) microns in diameter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 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, PMio and PM2.e. 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 Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg92 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 9 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mi ligation Significant No Impact I Im act Im act standards, and consistency with the current AQMP. As prescribed by SCAQMD, an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment (July 10, 2017) was prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. that utilizes CALEEMOD (Version 2013.2.2) 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City,, the impact (if any) to air quality caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Short Term (Construction): Project Emissions and Impacts The project proposes to develop a 232,068 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised building on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres)., Approximately two- thirds of the project site contains an abandoned parking lot and approximately one-third of the site contains an undeveloped gravel pad with non-native ruderal plant species including grasses, landscaping trees and shrubs, which will be removed for development of the proposed project. The potential emissions associated with construction of the project are described in the following sections. Summary of Peak Construction Emissions (Emissions Summary of Overall Construction with Best Available Control Measures) e tonal Si ntftcance„ Constr '}+`" uctwn Ernisstons� • , ; , , _, VOC NO, CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 4.91 51.84 40.51 0.04 10.49 6.51 Grading 7.73 93.4 65.88 0.13 8.1 5.21 Building Construction 4.6 34.18 39.62 0.08 4.88 2.59 Architectural Coating 46.7 2.39 4.59 0.01 0.67 0.31 Paving 2.61 20.37 15.66 0.02 1.31 1.09 Overlapping Phases' 53.95 56.94 59.87 0.1 6.85 3.99 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No VOC = volatile organic compounds; NO, = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2= oxides of sulfur; PMio and PM2.5 = particulate matter 1 Construction activities may overlap during building construction, painting and paving Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment - (Table 12) (CALEEMOD Version 2013.2.2) RK Engineering Group, Inc., July 10, 2017 Rev 3-1-16 E6-E8 Pg93 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 10 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No impact incorporated inistict Impact Construction activities associated with the project will result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, S02, PMto and PM2.5 and are expected from the following construction activities: site preparation, grading (including soil import), building construction, painting (architectural coatings), paving (curb, gutter, flatwork, and parking lot), and construction worker commuting. Localized Significance Summary (Construction Emissions with Best Available Control Measures) + x •, , r ,. ... 1 s ...' S it m Construction Localized Significance LST Pollutants' NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (Ibs/day) (Ibslday) (Ibs/day) (Ibslday) Maximum Onsite Emissions 69.59 46.81 10.29 6.46 SCAQMD Construction Threshold2 303 2,978 50 12 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PMio and PM2.5 = particulate matter I Reference LST thresholds are from 2006-2008 SCAQMD Mass rate Localized Significant Thresholds for construction and operation Tables C-1 through C-6 for a disturbance area of 5 acres and at a receptor distance of 25 meters. 2 Reference: Source Receptor Area 32 Thresholds for 5 acres at 50 meters Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment - (Table 13) (CALEEMOD Version 2013.2.2) RK Engineering Group, Inc., July 10, 2017 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; however, as shown in the tables above, the amount will not exceed any threshold of significance. Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally emissions 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. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg94 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 11 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Patentiafiy Significant ith Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Inver oraletl Im act Im act Architectural Coatinqs Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are similar to ROCs and are part of the 03 precursors. There is one industrial building proposed for the site. Per the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. dated July 14, 2016, it is estimated that the proposed project will result in a maximum of approximately 53.95 Ibs of VOC per day (combined for all construction sources) during construction. Therefore, this VOC emission is the principal air emission and is less than the SCAQMD VOC threshold of 75 Ibs/day. 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. 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 asbestos (NOA) during project construction is small and less than significant. Based on the discussion above and specified within the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment (RK Engineering Group, Inc./July 10, 2017), short- term, construction impacts will be less -than -significant and mitigation measures are not required. In order to further reduce any potential impacts created by the proposed development, the following measures will be required: 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) The project shall limit the daily disturbance area to 5 acres or less during grading. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg95 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 12 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Ihap. t 5) The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403. Cumulative Impacts: 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 be assessed. 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.s and PM10) 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. This city-wide increase in emissions was identified as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the Section 4.3 of the General Plan FPEIR. With implementation of the following best practices and mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize short-term air quality impacts, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be less -than -significant: 6) 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. 7) 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. 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. 10) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted to SCAQMD Rule 1108. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg96 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 13 Less Than Signifcant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Signifcant Mitigation Significant Na Ianact Incor prated Im act Im act 11) 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. 12) 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. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25mph) in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 13) 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 PMio emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 14) 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. Project Long Term (Operational) Emissions and Impacts Long-term air pollutant emissions 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 amount of development in the 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. As shown in the following tables, project implementation will not exceed any significance thresholds. No long-term, operational impacts will occur as a result of the project. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg97 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 14 Less Than Significant Less Issues and SuinInformation Sources: pp g Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incor oraled lm act Im act Summary of Peak Operational Emissions n fH re,," `Operatworial Emtss�ons' Urmrttgatetl,(Ibs/day)g d* 411 Z..t. I. x+ Activity VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 11.53 0 0.06 0 0 0 Energy Sources 0.01 0.14 0.11 0 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources 2.96 29.4 39.3 0.13 6.25 1.99 Total: Area Sources + Energy + Mobile 14.5 29.54 39.48 0.13 6.26 2 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No I No No No No No VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = oxides of sulfur; PMto and PM2.5 = particulate matter 1 Emission levels do not exceed the significance thresholds, therefore any additional air quality reduction measures will further reduce emissions. Section 5.0 of the report indicates additional emission reduction measures. Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment - (Table 14) (CALEEMOD Version 2013.2.2) RK Engineering Group, Inc., July 10, 2017 :L'ocahze'd.Stgniftca"nce Oppri ibn6VEmisstons.; LST Pollutants' CO NOx PMio PM2.5 (Ibslday) (lbs/day) (Ibslday) (Ibslday) On -site Emissions2 4.11 3.08 0.6 0.21 SCAQMD Operation Threshold3 2,978 303 12 3 Exceeds Threshold No No No No NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter ' Reference LST thresholds are from 2006-2008 SCAQMD Mass rate Localized Significance Thresholds for operation Table C-1 for an area of 5 acres and at a receptor distance of 50 meters. 2 Per LST methodology, mobile source emissions do not need to be included except for land use emissions and on -site vehicle emissions. It is estimated that approximately 10% of mobile emissions will occur on the project site. 3 Reference: Source Receptor Area 32 Thresholds. Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment - (Table 15) (CALEEMOD Version 2013.2.2) RK Engineering Group, Inc., July 10, 2017 Rev 3-1-16 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 15 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially significant With Mitigation Than Signifimt No I—— Incorporated Impact Im act Cumulative Impacts (Long Term/Operational Emissions) The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the potential impacts to air quality based on the future build out of the City. In the long-term, continued development 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, all developments would be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a less -than -significant level. This City-wide increase in emissions was identified as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the Section 4.3 of the General Plan FPEIR. With implementation of the following mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize long-term, operational air quality impacts, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be less -than -significant: 15) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. 16) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours. 17) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 18) Landscape with native and/or drought -resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 19) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 20) Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV-MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. 21) 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). 22) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 23) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 24) 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. 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 Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg99 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 16 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im act a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. With implementation of mitigation measures listed in subsection b) above from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR, which are designed to minimize long-term, operational air quality impacts, cumulative impacts will be less -than -significant. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to air quality caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 0.25 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is located within'/ mile of the following sensitive receptors: Vintage Apartments and Camden Landmark Apartments located south of the projects site within the City of Ontario and The Reserve at Empire Lakes Apartments located east of the project site within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Per the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc, on July 10, 2017, The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate toxic air contaminant emissions from diesel truck emissions created by the ongoing operation of the proposed project. The Health Risk Assessment goes on to indicate, All offsite diesel emissions concentrations were found to be below the 10.0 in a million cancer risk threshold discussed above in Section 5.1.5 for all age groups examined. Therefore, no significant long-term impacts would occur from the operation of diesel trucks on the project site. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to air quality caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. The proposed project is the construction and operation of a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised. Typically, warehouse/distribution activities do not create objectionable long - Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg100 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 17 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: signecant Mit'aaWitfion an Significant Np Impact Incorppratetl Impact Im act term odors that are normally associated with, for example, heavy manufacturing operations. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to air quality caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and 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 at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue. The proposed project is a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). According to a Habitat Suitability Evaluation prepared Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg101 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 18 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Slgnificanl with Mitigation Than Signifcant -Impact No Impact Inmr crated Impact by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on September 21, 2016, The study area is characterized as a highly degraded and disturbed former commercial site dominated by non-native ruderal plant species (grasses, forbs, landscaping trees and shrubs). Debris in the form of soil/asphalt and other trash dumping is present on site. The western portion of the site is an abandoned concrete parking lot. The eastern portion of the site consists of gravels and non-native grassland (mowed/disced). The surrounding properties are characterized by multitenant office buildings surrounded by a parking lot adjacent to the north and east, an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) to the south, across 4th Street, within the City of Ontario and vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time, across Utica Avenue, to the west. The subject property is also adjacent to two improved streets; Utica Avenue to the west, and 41h Street to the south. According to the General Plan Figure RC-4, and Section 4.4 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is within the Delhi Soils Area Boundary, which is an area of sensitive biological resources. Per the Habitat Suitability Evaluation prepared by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on September 21, 2016, A review of soil maps prepared for the area by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS 2016) indicate that the subject site is located within an area mapped as containing Delhi fine sand (Db) and Hilmar coarse sandy loam HaC). However, various long-standing anthropogenic site disturbances have significantly altered the site's surface soil characteristics from those more typical undisturbed Delhi series soils. A general surface soils analysis was conducted due to the close association of Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly (DSFF) to mostly open, sandy friable soils. Most of the on -site soils are covered with concrete and gravels. According, soil conditions are not consistent with potential DSFF habitat, Ecological Sciences, Inc. then states Based on the result of the evaluation, existing conditions present at the site are not consistent with those known or expected to support DSFF. No exposed natural or semi -natural open areas with unconsolidated wind -worked granitic soils or dunes are present. Exposure to historic and recurring substrate disturbances have substantial negative effects on potential DSFF habitat and may also prevent potentially suitable DSFF microhabitat soil conditions from developing. Substrate conditions are not consistent with those most often correlated with potential DSFF habitat. Although a few native plant species are present that are often associated with potential DSFF habitat, the context in which these species occur (e.g., scattered within highly disturbed site conditions) does not constitute a native plant community most commonly associated with potential DSFF habitat. There is no connectivity to the subject site from the nearest known (to us) DSFF population (3.4 miles southeast of the site) due to the presence of existing commercial development that entirely surrounds the site. While this species likely has the capability of dispersing over relatively large distances of seemingly unsuitable habitats under certain circumstances, it would be reasonable to assume (based on our current knowledge of the species) that the likelihood of DSFF dispersing to the subject site from the nearest known off -site occupied site would not be expected despite the fact that variables such as the length, width, and structural characteristics of dispersal corridors are not fully understood. Accordingly, the subject site would not be considered a viable property for preservation or restoration due to its geographic location and currenUsurrounding land uses which have fragmented potential DSFF habitat in the area. I Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg102 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 19 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im acI Incorporated Impact Im act Under current conditions, the site would be considered prohibitive to DSSF occupation. The underlying soil environment appears to be the most definitive factor of whether an area could potentially support DSFF. Quality of Delhi soils present within the study area was rated for its potential to support DSFF. The area mapped as Delhi soils was visually inspected and rated based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat in the permitted biologist's judgment: 1. Soils dominated by heavy deposits of alluvial material including coarse sands and gravels with little or no Delhi sands and evidence of soil compaction. Unsuitable. 2. Delhi sands are present but the soil characteristics include a predominance of alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils). Very Low Quality. 3. Although not clean, sufficient Delhi sands are present to prevent soil compaction. Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality. 4. Abundant clean Delhi sands with little or no alluvial material or Tujunga soils present. Moderate. Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Moderate Quality 5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi sands. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. High Quality Based on the above ratings and existing site conditions, the site would be considered Unsuitable for DSFF. In view of the site's highly degraded condition, exposure to long standing disturbances, and analyses of correlative habitat information from a wide range (e.g., relatively disturbed to more natural habitats) of occupied DSFF habitats in the region, the +/-11.86-acre site does not contain habitat suitable to support or sustain a DSFF population. It would be contrary to expectation that the FWS would require a focused protocol survey on such a degraded site. No mitigation is required for less than significant impacts under CEQA. The Habitat Suitability Evaluation was forwarded to the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) on October 19, 2016, in order to determine whether the USFWS concurred with the findings and opinion of the Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly permitted biologist. According to an email response received from Amanda Swaller with USFWS on November 30, 2016, Based on our review of the assessment and site photos you provided and of digital imagery and other information in our files, we concur with the assessment's determination that the site is unsuitable for DSF (FWS-SB-13B0402-17CPA0032). Therefore, no further analysis was determined to be necessary and no impacts to the Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly are anticipated. According to the Habitat Suitability Evaluation prepared by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on September 21, 2016, No direct observations or burrowing owl (BUOIN) signs (burrows, feathers, pellets, fecal material, prey remains, etc.) were recorded during the BUOW habitat assessment. Bird species observed included those that are accustomed to nearby human presence such as common raven (Corvus corax), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock dove (Columba livia), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg103 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 20 Less Than significant Les$ Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: PP g Potentially significant wim Mitigation Than Than No Im act Incor orated Im act Impact No nesting refugia (e.g., small mammal burrows wide enough for BUOW occupation) were recorded on the site primarily due to various recurring and historic anthropogenic disturbances (discing, OHV, and development). Although the BUOW is well known to occur in certain disturbed situations, the BUOW generally prefers moderately to heavily grazed grasslands for nesting and roosting and generally avoids sites where recurring site disturbances occlude or collapse potential nesting refugia and reduce small mammal colonies. Monitoring of the site and adjacent areas during peak BUOW activity times did not reveal any indication that this species was present or utilizing the site for foraging purposes. The occurrence potential for BUOW would therefore be considered low. Based on the information provided above from the site survey, there is a low potential for the BUOW to occur onsite. Although no direct observations or Burrowing Owl signs (burrows, feathers, pellets, fecal material, prey remains, etc.) were observed during the 2016 field survey, there is potential for ground, tree, and shrub -nesting birds to establish nests on the Project Site in the future. Mitigation Measures listed below are included to reduce impacts to migratory songbirds and other potentially sensitive biological resources to less than significant levels. 1) Three days prior to the removal of vegetation or ground -disturbing activities, a breeding bird survey that is in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be required to determine whether nesting is occurring. Occupied nests shall not be disturbed unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (a) the adult birds have not begun egg -laying or incubation; or (b) the juveniles from the occupied nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If the biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of non -raptor nests, and within 5,000 feet of raptor nests, during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of young. If nests are discovered, they shall be avoided through the establishment of an appropriate buffer setback, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary "no construction" area shall be maintained until the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction in the area may resume. 2) Perform a Burrowing Owl Survey that is in conformance with the Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and submit the written report outlining the findings to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Planning Department within 30 days of groundbreaking activity. The survey shall include a habitat assessment, survey and impact analysis. The Burrowing Owl Survey shall follow the following protocol: Burrowing Owl Survey methodology shall be based on Appendix D (Breeding and Non -breeding Season Surveys and Reports) of the CDFW Staff Report. Results of the pre -construction survey shall be provided to CDFW and the City. If the pre -construction survey does not identify burrowing owls on the project site, then no further mitigation is required. If burrowing owls are found to be utilizing the project site during the pre -construction survey, measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW to avoid Impacting occupied burrows during the nesting period. These Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg104 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 21 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than significant No hn act Inceraorated Impact Im act measures shall be based on the most current CDFW protocols and will at minimum include establishment of buffer setbacks from occupied burrows and owl monitoring. If ground -disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre -construction survey, the site shall be resurveyed for owls. During the non -breeding season from September 1 through January 31, if burrows are occupied by migratory or non -migratory resident burrowing owls during a pre -construction survey, burrow exclusion and/or closure may be used to exclude owls from those burrows. Burrow exclusion and/or closure should only be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW using the most current CDFW guidelines. During the avian nesting season from February 1 through August 31, if nests are discovered, they shall be avoided through establishment of an appropriate buffer setback, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary "no construction" area would have to be maintained until the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction in the area may resume. The Habitat Suitability Evaluation goes on to indicate that the existing degraded condition of the site is the direct consequence of long-standing use of the site for commercial activities resulting in low biological diversity (e.g., dominance of non-native species), absence of special -status plant communities, and low potential for special -status species to utilize or reside on site. Construction activities would not be expected to directly impact federal- or state -listed threatened or endangered species, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species (or special -status species), nor directly impact designated critical habitat. Site development would also not be expected to substantially alter the diversity of plants or wildlife in the area because of current degraded site conditions. The loss of these habitats would not be expected to substantially affect special -status resources or cause a population of plant or wildlife species to drop below self-sustaining levels. Therefore, it is anticipated that other than the potential impacts to migratory birds and burrowing owls, which mitigation measures are provided for above, the proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to candidate, sensitive, or special status species caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities and no riparian habitat exists on -site due to the on -site and surrounding improvements and characteristics as described in 4.a above. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg 105 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 22 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 PocentianY significant With Mitigabon Than Significant No Iinnicact Incorporated Im ad Im act Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. c) No wetland habitat is present on -site due to the on -site and surrounding improvements and characteristics as described in 4.a) above. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to federally protected wetlands caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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/south trending tributaries in the northern portion of the City and within the Sphere of Influence. The project site is located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue within an existing office and industrial area that is largely developed. The surrounding properties are characterized by multitenant office buildings surrounded by a parking lot adjacent to the north and east, an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) to the south, across 4th Street, within the City of Ontario and vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time, across Utica Avenue, to the west. The subject property is also adjacent to two improved streets; Utica Avenue to the west, and 4th Street to the south. Due to the site configuration, it is not anticipated that the project will create impacts to migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. However, the project does involve the removal of one hundred twenty eight (128) existing mature trees. Therefore, there may be direct impacts to migratory bird species nesting in these trees at the time of construction. Because of this, mitigation measures are provided in section 4.a) above which will reduce the impact to less -than -significant. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. e) According to an Arborist Report prepared by Steve F. Andresen on August 1, 2016, an on - site visit and inspection of one hundred twenty eight (128) existing mature trees located at 41h Street and Utica Avenue was conducted. Based on this review, there were a total of four (4) heritage trees located on the property measuring twenty inches or greater in Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg106 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 23 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially significant with Mitigation man Significant No Im a incorporated Impact Im act caliper width. All four heritage trees were determined to be Canary Island Pine trees and were determined to be in average to good health without irrigation or care. Heritage trees are subject to the City's tree preservation requirements as described in Section 17.80.050 of the Development Code. Heritage trees are defined in the Development Code as trees that meet several criteria including the following: all eucalyptus windrows [and] any tree in excess of thirty feet (30) in height and having a single trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of twenty inches (20') or more as measured four and a half feet (4.5) from ground level and warrant consideration for preservation or relocation. The applicant proposes to remove all of these trees (Related file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00845) and, therefore, project implementation will result in the removal of the heritage trees. The following mitigation measure shall reduce the impact to less -than -significant. 3) Each tree that is removed shall be replaced with a new tree, on a one-to-one basis, of a minimum 15-gallon size. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. f) Neither the City nor the SO[ 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 dedicated cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). Therefore, there will be no impact. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg107 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 24 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pctenfiai[y Significant wdh Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Im act Im act the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to historical resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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: 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during all initial ground disturbing activities, including grubbing, tree removal, demolition, grading, trenching, excavation and planting, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (SOI), to monitor construction activities, and to take appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or substantially reduce project - related impacts. With the assistance of the qualified 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 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 and Tribe(s) culturally affiliated with the geographic location of the project site. • In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during project activities, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will retain a Native American monitor from a tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated to assist the SOI-qualified archaeologist. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg108 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 25 Less Than SIgnik nt Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potengally Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incor oraled Im act Im act Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to archeological resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. c) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvialfan. 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 10,000-100,000 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: 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or 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, 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to paleontological resources, sites, and/or geologic features caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg109 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 26 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant wm Idltigauon Than Significant No Impact Incorlsonated Impact Impact The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site has already been disrupted by the construction of onsite and adjacent infrastructure and surrounding developments/annual discing for weed abatement. 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 7050.50) 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 6097.98. 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. In any event, the mitigation measure listed below will further reduce potential impacts caused by disturbance any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. 3) In accordance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.50 subdivision (c), the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MILD). After the MILD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MILD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MILD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MILD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.36 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to human remains caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8Pg110 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 27 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Incoroorated Impact Im act 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 () () () (✓) 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? () () () (✓) 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 2.9 miles north of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 5.9 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0-7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is about 18 miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is about 20 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg111 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 28 Less Than Si' Less Issues and SupportingInfoation S rmources: Potenfially Slgnificanl Wilh Mitigation Than Signifi ant No Impact Inror o sled Im act Im act due to geology and soils will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 generate 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 PMio 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. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PMjO 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 PMto emissions. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to geology and soils will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 Delhi fine sand (Db) and Hilmar coarse sandy loam (HaC) according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3 and a Habitat Suitability Analysis conducted by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on September 21, 2016. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg112 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 29 Less Than significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotenliaVy Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Iraact Incorporated Im act Im act Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) generated by Greenhouse Gas Emissions by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 Delhi fine sand (Db) and Hilmar coarse sandy loam (HaC) according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3 and a Habitat Suitability Analysis conducted by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on September 21, 2016. These soils are typically stable. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) generated by Greenhouse Gas Emissions by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) generated by Greenhouse Gas Emissions by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 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? 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 Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pgl 13 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 30 Less Than Sigcant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant ith Mitigaficn Than Significant No Impact Incor orated Im act Im act 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 6 key GHGs (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 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. 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 3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 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 CO2 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 analysis (CEQA 15064.4). Additionally, the ARB was directed through SIB 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 pollutants except PMto, PM2.5, and SO2 which are monitored at the Fontana -Arrow Highway station. The ambient air quality in the project area for CO, NO2, and SO2 are consistently below the relevant State and Federal standards (based on ARB and EPA from 2007, 2008, and 2009 readings). Ozone, PMto, and PM2.5 levels all exceed State and Federal standards regularly. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg114 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 31 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Pctentially significant With Mitigation Than Than No Im act incorporated Impact Im act Project 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. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has not adopted a threshold of significance for GHG emissions. However, a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is based upon South Coast Air Quality Management District staff's proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary sources emissions for non -industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD's Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Project related GHG's would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. Based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment prepared by RK Engineering on July 10, 2017, total project related emissions would be 2,627.26 MTCO2eq/year, as shown in the following table: Unmitigated Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions During Operation Emission Source Emissions (MTCO26 i; Area Source 0.02 Energy Source 263.55 Mobile Source 1873.67 Waste 100.75 Water 271.39 Subtotal (Operation) 2509.38 Subtotal Construction (averaged over 30 years) 17.88 Total Annual Emissions 2,527.26 CAP Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Screening Threshold? No SCAQMD Draft Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Screening Threshold? No 1 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment - (Table 17) RK Engineering Group, Inc., July 10, 2017 Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg115 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 32 Less Than Significant Less Issues and SupportingInformation Sources: Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Signifcant No hh act Incorporated Impact Im act As shown in the table, direct and indirect operational emissions associated with the project as compared to the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. Cumulative 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 CO2, Cho, and N2O. CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment prepared by RK Engineering on July 10, 2017, no significant impacts to GHGs from short-term construction impacts would occur as a result of the project as shown in the table above. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. In any event, the mitigation measures from the General Plan Update FPEIR that are listed below will further reduce impacts caused by Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions: 1) 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. 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. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew. Cumulative 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. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg116 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 33 Less Than Significant Lass Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pctentlally with Than significant Mitigation Significant No Im act incorporated Impact Im act 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. The project involves the construction of a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) 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: water efficient landscaping, shade trees, bike racks, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks. 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 proposed project will incorporate several design features including: water efficient landscaping, shade trees, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks. 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. Based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment prepared by RK Engineering on July 10, 2017, no significant impacts to GHGs from long-term, operational impacts would occur as a result of the project as shown in the table above. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. In any event, the mitigation measures from the General Plan Update FPEIR that are listed below will further reduce impacts caused by Long Term (Operational) GHG Emissions: 7) 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. 8) 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. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg117 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 34 Less Than significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Mil on Than slgnl No act Incorporated tm m a Im aol • 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. 9) 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 or as required by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). • 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. 10) 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) generated by Greenhouse Gas Emissions by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) The project involves the construction of a 232,058 square foot logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised building on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres), which is consistent with the General Plan. The 2010 General Plan Update includes 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 water efficient landscaping, shade trees, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks and therefore is consistent with the sustainability and climate change policies of the General Plan. The Rev 3-1-16 E6-E8 Pg118 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 35 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant WithThan Miligallon Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Im act 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. Based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment prepared by RK Engineering on July 10, 2017, no significant impacts to GHGs from short-term, construction impacts or long-term, operational impacts would occur as a result of the project. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the project's contribution to GHGs from short-term construction and long-term operational cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed in subsection a), less than significant impacts would occur as a result of the project. In addition, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction goals established by AB 32 and therefore would be less than a significant impact. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) created by conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 0.25 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 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 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? Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg119 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 36 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments a) Development within the City may utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. This is usually associated with individual households, small business operations, and maintenance activities like paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and motor oil or through construction activities that would use paints; solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease, and oils. These materials would be stored and used at individual sites. 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 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 the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No adverse impacts are expected. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to hazards caused, and/or waste materials generated by, those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. 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 building is 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 adverse impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area Adoption of the amendment does not preclud e increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. the review by the City of any project Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg120 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 37 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant wim Mtigagan Than Significant No ' Impact incarcerated Im act Im act located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to hazards caused, and/or waste materials generated by, those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. c) There are no schools located within 0.25 mile of the project site. The project site is located within 1.3 miles of the nearest existing school, Rancho Cucamonga Middle School, located at 10022 Feron Boulevard. The proposed building is 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to hazards caused, and/or waste materials generated by, those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. d) According to section 4.8.6 Threshold 4.8.d of the PEIR, the proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Furthermore, recent site inspections did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to hazards caused, and/or waste materials generated by, those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 and is within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to airport land use plans caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg121 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 38 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Peientially Significant With Migation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im act 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to emergency access plans and evacuation routes caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to the exposure of people or structures to wildfire risk caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () () (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg 122 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 39 Less Than Signifcant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: pp 9 Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Im act inco orated Innact Im act 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 () () () (✓) 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? () () () (✓) 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. 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 (NOI) 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. Eliminate or reduce non -storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. Perform inspections of all BMPs. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Fig 123 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 40 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g m Sotentlally Significant with Mitigafion Than Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Impact 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's 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 Alta Civil Design in October, 2016, 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: 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 grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of 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 Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg124 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 41 Less Than Sigcant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially significant With Mitigation Than Than No Im act Incor oratetl Im act Im act Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Post -Construction Operational., 6) 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. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) According to CVWD, approximately 35 percent of the City's water is currently provided from water supplies coming from the underlying Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg125 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 42 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant wtn Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to drainage patterns that result in erosion caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to drainage patterns that results in flooding caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to existing or planned stormwater drainage systems caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg126 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 43 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Ianicact incorporated Impact Impact 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 site is for new development; therefore, is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to minimize water pollution. With implementation of the mitigation measures specified under subsection a), less than significant impacts are anticipated. 8) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Alta Civil Design in October of 2016 to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to water quality caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. g) No housing units are proposed with this project. No adverse impacts are expected. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to housing due to flood hazards caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to flood flow patterns caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg127 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 44 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant with Mitigafish Than Than No Impact Inco eratetl Im act Im act Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to flooding caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. j) 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. 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, 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 project site is located on the northeast corner of 41h Street and Utica Avenue, approximately 0.25 mile east of Haven Avenue. There are some on -site, street -facing improvements along the overall street frontage of the project site including landscape, trees and an abandoned parking lot. There are no buildings on -site; it is currently vacant. The property is bound on the north and east by several parcels that are developed with multitenant office buildings that contain sufficient parking lot and landscape improvements. To the south, across 4th Street, is the Camden Landmark Apartment complex within the City of'Ontario. To the west, across Utica Avenue, is vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time. The site will be developed with an industrial building that will be similar to the newer buildings in the industrial areas of the City. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg128 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 45 Less Than SignlficanI Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant wn Mitiga on _Tr Significant No hn act Inw oratetl Im act Im act Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to established communities caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) The project site's General Plan land use designation is Mixed Use. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection, or SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. The project is located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, which allows for industrial development. The proposal is for the construction a 232,068 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined Area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). The site will be developed with an industrial building that will be similar to the newer buildings in the industrial areas of the City. The minimum building, parking lot, and wall setbacks; dock and storage area screening; and landscape coverage are consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. However, the current maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (FAR) required within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan is 0.35. The project involves the construction of an industrial development with an FAR of 0.45. In addition to the Design Review for the proposed development of the site, the applicant is also proposing to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to increase the maximum allowable FAR within Planning Area 5 from 0.35 to 0.50. The proposed change is consistent with the allowable standards within the immediate vicinity and therefore impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to any land use plan, policy, or regulation caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 located within the Delhi Soils Area Boundary and is therefore within an area of sensitive biological resources. The applicant submitted a Habitat Suitability Evaluation prepared by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on September 21, 2016. The study analyzed the site suitability to support the federally -listed endangered Delhi Sands flower -loving fly (DSFF). Per the evaluation, A review of soil maps prepared for the area by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS 2016) indicate that the subject site is located within an area mapped as containing Delhi fine sand (Db) and Hilmar coarse sandy loam HaC). However, various long-standing anthropogenic site disturbances have significantly altered the site's surface soil characteristics from those more typical undisturbed Delhi series soils. A general surface soils analysis was conducted due to the close association of DSFF to mostly open, sandy friable soils. Most of the on -site soils are covered with concrete and gravels. According, soil conditions are not consistent with potential DSFF habitat. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg129 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 46 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With" Mitigation Than Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact Ecological Sciences, Inc. then states based on the result of the evaluation, existing conditions present at the site are not consistent with those known or expected to support DSFF. No exposed natural or semi -natural open areas with unconsolidated wind -worked granitic soils or dunes are present. Exposure to historic and recurring substrate disturbances have substantial negative effects on potential DSFF habitat and may also prevent potentially suitable DSFF microhabitat soil conditions from developing. Substrate conditions are not consistent with those most often correlated with potential DSFF habitat. Although a few native plant species are present that are often associated with potential DSFF habitat, the context in which these species occur (e.g., scattered within highly disturbed site conditions) does not constitute a native plant community most commonly associated with potential DSFF habitat. There is no connectivity to the subject site from the nearest known (to us) DSFF population (3.4 miles southeast of the site) due to the presence of existing commercial development that entirely surrounds the site. While this species likely has the capability of dispersing over relatively large distances of seemingly unsuitable habitats under certain circumstances, it would be reasonable to assume (based on our current knowledge of the species) that the likelihood of DSFF dispersing to the subject site from the nearest known off -site occupied site would not be expected despite the fact that variables such as the length, width, and structural characteristics of dispersal corridors are not fully understood. Accordingly, the subject site would not be considered a viable property for preservation or restoration due to its geographic location and current/surrounding land uses which have fragmented potential DSFF habitat in the area. Under current conditions, the site would be considered prohibitive to DSSF occupation. The underlying soil environment appears to be the most definitive factor of whether an area could potentially support DSFF. Quality of Delhi soils present within the study area was rated for its potential to support DSFF. The area mapped as Delhi soils was visually inspected and rated based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat in the permitted biologist's judgment. 6. Soils dominated by heavy deposits of alluvial material including coarse sands and gravels with little or no Delhi sands and evidence of soil compaction. Unsuitable. 7. Delhi sands are present but the soil characteristics include a predominance of alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils). Very Low Quality. 8. Although not clean, sufficient Delhi sands are present to prevent soil compaction. Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality. 9. Abundant clean Delhi sands with little or no alluvial material or Tujunga soils present. Moderate. Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Moderate Quality 10. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi sands. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. High Quality Based on the above ratings and existing site conditions, the site would be considered Unsuitable for DSFF. In view of the site's highly degraded condition, exposure to long Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg130 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 47 Less Than SignifZt Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pctentially significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Inco oraled Im act Im act standing disturbances, and analyses of correlative habitat information from a wide range (e.g., relatively disturbed to more natural habitats) of occupied DSFF habitats in the region, the +/--11.86-acre site does not contain habitat suitable to support or sustain a DSFF population. It would be contrary to expectation that the FWS would require a focused protocol survey on such a degraded site. No mitigation is required for less than significant impacts under CEQA. The Habitat Suitability Evaluation was forwarded to the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) on October 19, 2016, in order to determine whether the USFWS concurred with the findings and opinion of the Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly permitted biologist. According to an email response received from Amanda Swaller with USFWS on November 30, 2016, Based on our review of the assessment and site photos you provided and of digital imagery and other information in our files, we concur with the assessment's determination that the site is unsuitable for DSF (FWS-SB-13B0402-17CPA0032). Therefore, no further analysis was determined to be necessary and no impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to any conservation plan caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. 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? 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to mineral resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg131 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 48 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigafion Than Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to mineral resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Figure PS-9 at build -out. The project site is located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue approximately'/ mile east of Haven Avenue. The project involves a proposal to construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised building on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined Area of 516,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad. The street frontage along 4th Street is about 600 feet and along Utica Avenue is 880 feet. There are no buildings onsite; the site is currently vacant. The property is bound on the north and east by several parcels that are developed with multitenant office buildings containing parking and landscape improvements. To the south, across 4th Street, is the Camden Landmark Apartment complex within the City of Ontario. To the west, across Utica Avenue, is vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time. A noise study was prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. on July 13, 2016, in which short-term as well as long-term noise impacts were analyzed. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg132 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 49 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Mifigafian Than Significant No I Impact Incor orated Im act Im act Construction Noise Levels Per RK Engineering, "Construction staging would occur approximately 300 to 350 feet from northern and eastern property lines. At these distances the projected construction noise level would range between 66 to 69 dBA and would not exceed the City's 70 dBA limit at the property line for commercial uses." Per the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Municipal Code, 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 lines to the north and east and west. The noise study also indicates that the project's construction noise levels would be considered consistent with the City of Ontario's municipal noise ordinance and is less than significant to the residences to the south. However, 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. Mitigation Measures are provided in section d) below that will both restrict the hours of construction and require noise monitoring to maintain consistency with the City's requirements. With the implementation of these measures, the project's short-term noise impacts will be less than significant. Operational Noise Levels Upon completion of the construction of the project, noise from the site will most likely be generated by truck traffic and dock area activities — all other activities will be conducted within the buildings. The dock area will be screened from the street by a concrete tilt -up wall of a minimum 8 feet in height. There are no sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the project site. The nearest noise sensitive area is an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) located to the south of the project site, on the opposite side of 4th Street, in the City of Ontario. The nearest apartment unit/building is about 170 feet from the perimeter of the project. According to the Noise Study, the largest increase in noise levels is along Utica Avenue between 61h and 41h Street, where an increase of up to 0.8 dBA is predicted for the Existing With Project scenario. A noise level increase of 3 dBA or more is perceptible to the human ear and would be considered significant. All other roadways in the project area would have a traffic noise increase of 0.1 dBA or less. All nearby land uses would experience a nominal increase in ambient noise as it relates to traffic. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to roadway noise and no mitigation measures on off -site noise -sensitive land uses are required. In addition to the anticipated off -site traffic noise impacts, the Noise Study also analyzes the on -site traffic noise impacts that will be generated by the proposed project. Sensitive receptors that may be affected by the proposed operational noise include surrounding residential to the south of the project site. The worst -case transportation and stationary noise was modeled utilizing the SoundPLAN model. Noise sources associated with the proposed parking areas, idling trucks, loading and unloading activities were assumed to occur at all hours of the day. Noise would be generated by the trucks' diesel engines, exhaust systems, braking, and forklifts. Exhibit D in the Noise Study evaluated the future operational noise levels at the sensitive receptors. Based on this, future operational noise levels are expected to range from 33.2 to 50.9 dBA. The operational noise level is below the City's most strict nighttime 60 dBA limit and is therefore consistent with the City's Noise Element and Municipal Code. The project's Community Noise Equivalent Level Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg 133 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 50 Less Than Slgnifiwnt Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially significant wu Miligation Than Significant No Im act Incur oraled Im act Im act (CNEL) at the nearest sensitive receptors will range between 52 and 57 dBA CNEL, which is consistent with the City's General Plan and would therefore be considered less than significant. Furthermore, the study analyzed future interior noise impacts. Based on the data provided in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79- 100, Nov 1979), standard homes in Southern California provide at least 12 dBA of noise exterior to interior noise attenuation with windows open and 20 dBA with windows closed. Therefore, residences would need to be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL (45 dBA + 20 dBA = 65 dBA) to potentially exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows closed. With the windows open, residences would need to be exposed to a worst -case noise level of 56 dBA CNEL (45 dBA + 12 dBA = 57 dBA) to exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows open. Based on the discussion above, the closest residences (located south of 4th Street) would be exposed to noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL with windows closed. Therefore, based upon standard home construction assembly design, the interior noise level within the residences would be 45 dBA CNEL and would not exceed the City's interior noise limit. The project would have a less than significant impact. Therefore, based on the information provided in the Noise Study, the proposed project would not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of the standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. In any event, the mitigation measures listed below will further reduce exterior and interior noise levels: 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. until 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. 3) 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: T­ 4) Business operations shall maintain a noise level at 60dB or less during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 p.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 p.m. and 7 p.m. in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to residential areas. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg134 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 51 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Signiflcant with Mitigation Than Signifcant No Im act Incorporated Im act Inn act Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to noise caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) The proposed industrial buildings are 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 commercial and residential 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. There are no sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the project site. The nearest noise sensitive area is an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) located to the south of the project site, on the opposite side of 4th Street, in the City of Ontario. The nearest apartment unit/building is about 170 feet from the perimeter of the project. Per the Noise Study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. on July 13, 2016, Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary source vibration during construction may be from a bull dozer. A small dozer has a vibration impact of 0.003 inches per second PPV at 25 feet. The distance of the construction equipment will be further that 25 feet from any existing building. It is anticipated that no significant vibration impact will occur to any adjacent buildings due to the distance of construction equipment from the buildings. The project is not anticipated to have a vibration impact and is considered not significant. In any event, the measures listed under 12.d will further reduce exterior and interior noise levels to less -than -significant levels. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to vibrations caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. c) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. Noise from the site will most likely be generated by truck traffic and dock area activities — all other activities will be conducted within the buildings. The dock area will be screened from the street by a concrete tilt -up wall of a minimum 8 feet in height. There are no sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the project site. The nearest noise sensitive area is an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) located to the south of the project site, on the opposite side of 4th Street, in the City of Ontario. The nearest apartment unit/building is about 170 feet from the perimeter of the project. Per the Noise Study, the largest increase in noise levels is along Utica Avenue between 61h and 4th Street, where an increase of up to 0.8 d8A is predicted for the Existing With Project scenario. A noise level increase of 3 d8A or more is perceptible to the human ear and would be considered significant. All other roadways in the project area would have a traffic noise increase of 0.1 d8A or less. All nearby land uses would experience a nominal increase in ambient noise as it relates to traffic. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to roadway noise and no mitigation measures on off -site noise -sensitive land uses are Rev 3-1-16 E6-E8 Pg135 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 52 Less Than significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than significant No kn act Incorporated Im act Im act required. In any event, the measures listed in 12.a will further reduce the permanent long- term noise impacts. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to increased ambient noise levels caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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: 1) Construction cannot take place 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. 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. 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) Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps should be located at least 300 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible. 4) Construction staging areas should be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. 5) During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. 6) Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use. 7) Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. 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: 8) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg136 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 53 Less Than significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially slgnifcanl With "iga6on Than significant No Impact Inco crated Im ac[ Im act 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. e) The site is located within an airport land use plan and is within 2 miles of a public airport. The Project is located approximately 1.5 miles northeasterly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path and is within the CNEL noise contour. The applicant has submitted a Noise Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. on July 13, 2016, which analyzed airport source noise impacts. Per the study, The project site is located 1.42 miles north of the Ontario International Airport. The project site is located outside the confluence of 60 d8A noise contour and therefore the impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to excessive noise levels generated by airports in the vicinity of those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. f) 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? Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg137 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 54 Less Than Slgni(cant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially SlgniOcant with Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incor oraletl Im act Impact Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) due to population growth caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) The project site is vacant and therefore contains no existing housing units. Because the property is vacant there will be no displacement of housing or people. Therefore no adverse impact is expected. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to existing housing caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. c) The project site is vacant and is vacant land. Because the property is vacant there will be no displacement of housing or people. Therefore no adverse impact is expected. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) of the displacement of people caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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? () () () (✓) Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg138 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 55 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Iirnin.m Incorporated to -pa" Im act C) Schools? O O O (✓) d) Parks? () () () (✓) e) Other public facilities? () () () (✓) Comments: a) The site, located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue, would be served by Fire Station #4 located at 11297 Jersey Boulevard approximately 1.25 miles from 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to fire protection services caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. No impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to police protection services caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to schools caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is Old Town Park located at 10033 Feron Boulevard approximately 1.3 miles from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg139 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 56 Less Than 7,gn Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: with Mitigation man Significant No nca oratetl Im act Im act 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to parks caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to other public facilities caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 is Old Town Park located at 10033 Feron Boulevard approximately 1.3 miles from 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. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg140 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 57 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S pp g Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Incur .rated Im act Im act Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to recreational facilities caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) See a) response above. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. 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? () () () (✓) f) 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 involves the construction of a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains remnants of an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 & 90. Based on a Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Translutions, Inc. on June 21, 2016, the project is forecast to generate 41 PCE trips during the a.m. peak hour, 46 PCE trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 624 Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg141 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 58 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentlaoy Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Innact Incorporated Impact Im act daily PCE trips. 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 minor street improvements 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to the performance of the transportation/traffic circulation system caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) Based on a Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Translutions, Inc. on June 21, 2016, the project is forecast to generate 41 PCE trips during the a.m, peak hour, 46 PCE trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 624 daily PCE trips. Since the trip generation of the project is less than 50 trips during any peak hour, it is our professional opinion that a traffic study should not be required and that the project impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 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 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to congestion management program caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. c) Located approximately 1.25 miles northeasterly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. The project is located within Rev 3-1-16 H—H Pg142 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 59 Leas Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation man Significant No Im act Incorporated Im act Im act 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 impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to air traffic patterns caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) of transportation design features associated with those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to emergency access caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. f) The design of the project includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction including bicycle racks at the office area, preferential parking for car/vanpools, pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks, etc. No impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg143 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 60 Less Than Signifcant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: pp 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incur oraled Im act Impact caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, 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: a) 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)? b) 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? Comments: a) The project site is located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue. The proposed project is a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). According to a Habitat Suitability Evaluation submitted by Ecological Sciences, Inc, on September 21, 2016, The study area is characterized as a highly degraded and disturbed former commercial site dominated by non-native ruderal plant species (grasses, forbs, landscaping trees and shrubs). Debris in the form of soil/asphalt and other trash dumping is present on site. The western portion of the site is an abandoned concrete parking lot. The eastern portion of the site consists of gravels and non-native grassland (mowed/disced). The surrounding properties are characterized by multitenant office buildings surrounded by a parking lot adjacent to the north and east, an apartment complex (Camden Landmark Apartments) to the south, across 41h Street, within the City of Ontario and vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time, across Utica Avenue, to the west. The subject property is also adjacent to two improved streets; Utica Avenue to the west, and 4th Street to the south. A Cultural Resource Assessment was prepared by Psomas in July of 2016. The study was conducted to determine the potential for adverse impacts to any cultural resources that would result from the project. According to the study, the results of the records search indicate that the property has not been the subject of an archaeological investigation, nor have any cultural resources been recorded on or within % mile of the property. The paleontological records search revealed that no previously recorded vertebrate paleontology fossil sites are present on or near the property. The field survey did not result in the discovery -of any cultural resources. Furthermore, the project site is not listed Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg144 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 61 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g maSources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Innact Incorporated Impact Im act 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). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to Tribal Cultural Resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. b) A Cultural Resource Assessment was prepared by Psomas in July of 2016. The study was conducted to determine the potential for adverse impacts to any cultural resources that would result from the project. According to the study, the results of the records search indicate that the property has not been the subject of an archaeological investigation, nor have any cultural resources been recorded on or within % mile of the property. The paleontological records search revealed that no previously recorded vertebrate paleontology fossil sites are present on or near the property. The field survey did not result in the discovery of any cultural resources. Additionally, in accordance with SB18 and AB52, on January 12, 2017, Native American communities including, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe, Gabrieleno-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabriel eno-Tongva Nation, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians/Kizh Nation, Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians and Serrano Nation of Mission 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 City was contacted via email on January 25, 2017, by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians who stated a records check of the ACBCI cultural registry revealed that this project is not located within the Tribe's Traditional Use Area (TUA). Therefore, we defer to the other tribes in the area. This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts. The City was also contacted via email on March 7, 2017, by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians who requested that a Cultural Resource Assessment be sent over to their Cultural Resources Management Department for further review in order to determine whether the Tribe will pursue further consultation. The Tribe also requested to review the draft mitigation measures relating to cultural and tribal cultural resources. On April 6, 2017, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians forwarded their comments relating to the draft mitigations and concluded their input on this project. No other contact was made by any of the other Tribes listed above. Although the Cultural Resource Assessment did not indicate that cultural resources were reordered within a '/2 mile radius of the site and the field survey did not result in the discovery of any cultural resources, it is still possible that a tribal cultural resource could be discovered during the grading and construction of the site. With the following mitigation measure, which was provided in the Cultural Resource Assessment and reviewed by the Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg145 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 62 Less Than Signifmant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wm Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incor oratetl Im act Im act San Manuel Band of Mission Indian's Cultural Resources Management Department, impacts to the tribal cultural resources will be less than significant. 1) 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, this will include preparation of a treatment plan and/or Discovery and Monitoring Plan, of which shall be provided to the tribe for review and comment. 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 SCCIC. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg146 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 63 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant itn Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incor crated Im act Im act Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to Tribal Cultural Resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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? 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 buildout 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to wastewater treatment requirements caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg147 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 64 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wtn Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Incorporated Im act Im act 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to wastewater treatment requirements caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. c) 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 and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to storm water drainage facilities caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to water supplies caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to wastewater treatment capacity caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg148 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 65 Less Than JSig,0fi.=tctlially Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: wu, man ct comofionSignificant Into araletl Im act Im act 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to landfill capacity caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to solid waste statues and regulations caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 project site is located on the northeast corner of 41h Street and Utica Avenue, approximately '/< mile east of Haven Avenue. The project site consists of five (5) parcels, and when combined, are approximately 520 feet (east to west) by 860 feet (north to south) Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg149 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 66 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially significant With hLtigation Than Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act with a combined area of about 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). The frontage of three of the parcels (APNs: 0210-082-78, 89 & 90) along Utica Avenue contains street improvements, including paving, curb and gutter. The frontage of three of the parcels (APNs: 0210-082-78, 79 & 84) along 4th Street contains street improvements, including paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. There are onsite, street -facing improvements along the overall street frontage of the project site including landscape, trees and an abandoned parking lot. There are no buildings onsite; it is currently vacant. The property is bound on the north and east by several parcels that are developed with multitenant office buildings containing parking and landscape improvements. To the south, across 4th Street, is the Camden Landmark Apartment complex within the City of Ontario. To the west, across Utica Avenue, is vacant property that appears to have been used as a vineyard and has been inactive for an uncertain amount of time. According to the Habitat Suitability Evaluation submitted by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on September 21, 2016, the subject site was surveyed and ultimately characterized as a highly degraded and disturbed former commercial site dominated by non-native ruderal plant species (grasses, forbs, landscaping trees and shrubs). Debris in the form of soil/asphalt and other trash dumping is present on site. The western portion of the site is an abandoned concrete parking lot. The eastern portion of the site consists of gravels and non-native grassland (mowed/disced). Based on the site's current condition and the existing adjacent development, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would degrade the quality of the environment or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Based on the Habitat Suitability Evaluation discussed above in the Biological Resources section, the site was analyzed to determine whether it is suitable for various species, such as Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly and Burrowing Owl. The evaluation also discussed the habitat observed during a site survey. Ultimately, the biologist determined that the proposed industrial project would not be expected to degrade the quality of the environment, to 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. Mitigation measures were added in the Biological Resources section that would reduce any potential impacts to migratory birds and Burrowing Owls to less than significant levels. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to biological and cultural resources caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg150 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 67 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. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the cumulative impacts (if any) caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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. As prescribed by SCAQMD, an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study and Health Risk Assessment (RK Engineering Group, Inc./July 10, 2017) that utilizes CALEEMOD (Version 2013.2.2) to evaluate short-term construction emissions for Regional and localized significant thresholds, long-term operational emissions, operation emissions for localized significant thresholds, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As stated in the Air Quality Section, proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels to less than significant levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less -than -significant levels. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 will increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Adoption of the amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located on other parcels within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. When the applications for those projects are submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to human beings, either directly or indirectly, caused by those projects will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. 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 FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) (T) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg151 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 68 (T) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (T) Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) (T) Air Quality Study (RK Engineering Group, Inc., July 10, 2017) (T) Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment (Psomas, July 2016) (T) Habitat Suitability Evaluation (Ecological Sciences, Inc., September 21, 2016) (T) Noise Impact Study (RK Engineering Group, Inc., October 13, 2017) (T) Arborist Report (Steven F. Andresen Arborist Services, August 1, 2016) (T) AB52 Tribal Consultation Request Letters (City of Rancho Cucamonga, January 12, 2017) (T) SB18 Tribal Consultation Request Letters (City of Rancho Cucamonga, January 12, 2017) (T) SB18 Tribal Consultation List (Native American Heritage Commission, January 11, 2017) Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg152 Initial Study for City of Randho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2016-00670 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 Page 69 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that l 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 wheie clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. ApplicanPsSignature: (17tDate: Print Name and Title: e34dLeY 7.-Audw,,7- 105&q J/ c`vu Rev 3-1-16 E6—E8 Pg153 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: DRC2016-00670 and DRC2016-00931 Applicant: Charles Joseph Associates Initial Study Prepared by: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner Date: April 5, 2017 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance n-mx. cw Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or BO C During Construction A 2/4 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 BO C During Construction A 2/4 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 BO C During Construction A 2/4 on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. 4) The project shall limit the daily disturbance BO C During Construction A 2/4 area to 5 acres or less during grading. 5) The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule BO/PD C/E During Construction/ A 2/4 403. Operation 6) All construction equipment shall be maintained BO 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. 7) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, PD/BO C Review of Plans C 2 the developer shall submit construction plans Page 1 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance 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. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize BO C Review of Plans/ A/C 4 electric or clean alternative fuel powered During Construction equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 construction -grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use 10) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance BO B During Construction A 2 standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 11) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed BO C During Construction A 2/4 performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high -volume, low pressure spray. 12) All construction equipment shall comply with BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover - on the BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on -site haul BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 roads. • Phase grading to prevent the BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 amounts of exposed excavated soil duringand after the end of work periods. Page 2 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance • Dispose of surplus excavated material in BO C Review of Plans A 4 accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering ractices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule BO C During Construction A 4 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 BO C During Construction A 4 winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard BO C During Construction A 4 ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 13) The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During Construction A 4 soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PMio emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 14) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by BO C During Construction A 4 SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PMlo emissions. Long Term Emissions and Impacts 15) Provide preferential parking to high BO C During Construction A 4 occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. 16) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during BO C During Construction A 4 off-peak hours. 17) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and BO C During Construction A 4 reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 18) Landscape with native and/or drought- BO C During Construction A 4 resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. Page 3 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance 19) Provide lighter color roofing and road BO C During Construction A 4 materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 20) Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous BO C During Construction A 4 Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV-MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. 21) All industrial and commercial facilities shall BO C Review of Plans A 4 post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 22) All industrial and commercial facilities shall PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/3 designate preferential parking for vanpools. 23) All industrial and commercial site tenants with PD C Review of Plans D 2/3 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 24) All industrial and commercial site tenants with PD C Review of Plans D 213 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. 'Section 4 Biologioal�Resources " � �-� - - :..._,� 1) Three days prior to the removal of vegetation PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 or ground -disturbing activities, a breeding bird survey that is in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be required to determine whether nesting is occurring. Occupied nests shall not be disturbed unless a qualified biologist verifies through non- invasive methods that either (a) the adult birds have not begun egg -laying or incubation; or (b) the .juveniles from the occupied nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If the biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall Page 4 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date lInitials Sanctions for Non -Compliance occur within 300 feet of non -raptor nests, and within 5,000 feet of raptor nests, during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of young. If nests are discovered, they shall be avoided through the establishment of an appropriate buffer setback, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary "no construction" area shall'be maintained until the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction in the area may resume. 2) Perform a Burrowing Owl Survey that is in PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 conformance with the Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and submit the written report outlining the findings to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Planning Department within 30 days of groundbreaking activity. The survey shall include a habitat assessment, survey and impact analysis. The Burrowing Owl Survey shall follow the following protocol: • Burrowing Owl Survey methodology shall be based on Appendix D (Breeding and Non -breeding Season Surveys and Reports) of the CDFW Staff Report. Results of the pre - construction survey shall be provided to CDFW and the' City. If the pre - construction survey does not identify burrowing owls on the project site, then no further mitigation is required. If burrowing owls are found to be utilizing the project site during the pre - construction survey, measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW to avoid Page 6 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance Impacting occupied burrows during the nesting period. These measures shall be based on the most current CDFW protocols and will at minimum include establishment of buffer setbacks from occupied burrows and owl monitoring. If ground -disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre -construction survey, the site shall be resurveyed for owls. • During the non -breeding season from September 1 through January 31, if burrows are occupied by migratory or non -migratory resident burrowing owls during a pre -construction survey, burrow exclusion and/or closure may be used to exclude owls from those _ burrows. Burrow exclusion and/or closure should only be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW using the most current CDFW guidelines. • During the avian nesting season from February 1 through August 31, if nests are discovered, they shall be avoided through establishment of an appropriate buffer setback, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary .,no construction" area would have to be maintained until the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction in the area may resume. Page 6 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance 3) Each tree that is removed shall be replaced PD C During Construction A 3 with a new tree, on a one-to-one basis, of a minimum 15-gallon size. Section 5=,CulturaliResouFces 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during all initial ground disturbing activities, including grubbing, tree removal, demolition, grading, trenching, excavation and planting, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of- Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (SOI), to monitor construction activities, and to take appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or substantially reduce project -related impacts. With the assistance of the qualified archaeologist, the City of Rancho , Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect PD/BO C Review of Report A/D 314 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 AID 3/4 archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with PD B/C Review of report A/D 214 Section 21083.2 Archaeological and plans during resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse construction 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 ark or green space or paying an in -kind Page 7 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance 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 and Tribe(s) culturally affiliated with the geographic location of the project site. • In the event Native American cultural PD C Review of Report A/D 3/4 resources are discovered during project activities, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will retain a Native American monitor from a tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated to assist the SOI-qualified archaeologist. 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or PD B Review of Report A/D 4 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, trained PD B Review of Report A/D 4 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 4 being cleared or graded, divert earth - Page 8 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Freque cy Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance 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 PD D Review of Report D 3 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 PD D Review of Report D 3 Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Page 9 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance 3) In accordance with State Health and Safety PD/BO C During Construction A/D 4 Code Section 7050.50 subdivision (c), the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. •Section 6 ;Geology and Soilsr_ _ _ 1) The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During Construction A 4 Page 10 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PMio 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 4 according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PMio 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 4 wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PMio emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by BO C During Construction A 4 SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Sec_tiona7;=.Greenhouse Gas_Emissions'-.: Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that BO C During Construction A 4 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. 2) The construction contractor shall select BO C During Construction A 4 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 BO C During Construction A 4 than 5 minutes. Page 11 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be BO C During Construction A 4 utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel -powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to BO C During Construction A 4 interfere with peak -hour traffic. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be BO C During Construction A 4 supported and encouraged for construction crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG Emissions 7) Construction and Building materials shall be BO A During Construction C 2 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. 8) Design all buildings to exceed California BO C During Construction A 4 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. 9) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation BO A During Construction C 2 strategy appropriate for the project and Page 12 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance 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 or as required by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). • 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. 10) Reuse and recycle construction and CE A Review of Plans C 2 demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. °Section 9 'Hydrology:and�Watef.;Quality=" Construction Activities 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, 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, BO B/C/D/ Review of Plans A/C 2/4 included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that Page 13 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance 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 A/C 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 A/C 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 grading or paving BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of 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. Post -Construction Operational 6) Prior to issuance of building permits, the BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan WQMP , including a Page 14 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance 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. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 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 i the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Grading Activities 8) The developer shall implement the BMPs BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Alta Civil Design in October of 2016 to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Section 12 =Noise _ 1) Construction cannot take place between the BO C During Construction A 4 hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not BO C During Construction A 4 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. Page 15 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance 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) Stationary construction noise sources such as BO C During Construction A 4 generators or pumps should be located at least 300 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible. 4) Construction staging areas should be located BO C During Construction A 4 as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. 5) During construction, the contractor shall BO C During Construction A 4 ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. 6) Idling equipment shall be turned off when not BO C During Construction A 4 in use. 7) Equipment shall be maintained so that BO C During Construction A 4 vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. 8) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place PO/BO C During Construction A 4/7 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. 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 ass sensitive land uses or residential Page 16 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance dwellings. SectIbnA7 =;Noise: s r 1) In the event that cultural resources are PD B/C Review of report A/D 2/4 inadvertently unearthed during excavation and during and grading activities, the Contractor shall construction 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, this will include preparation of a treatment plan and/or Discovery and Monitoring Plan, of which shall be provided to the tribe for review and comment. 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 Page 17 of 19 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance 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 SCCIC. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible>Person V Monitoring;Frequency ; ;"Method.,of Verification, _';` -Sanctions' CDD - Community Development Director or 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 B - 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/Studies/ Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order Page 18 of 19 PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 7 -Citation m rn 00 v V N Page 19 of 19 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING Project File No.: Design Review DRC2016-00670, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931, and Tree RemovalPermit DRC2016-00671. 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 Director, 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 E6—E8 Pg173 Mitigation Monitoring Program Project 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. 4. 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 Director prior to the issuance of building permits. E6—E8 Pg174 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated forpubllc review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Design Review DRC2016-00670, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671. Public Review Period Closes: May 24, 2017 Project Name: Project Applicant: Chuck Buquet Charles Joseph Associates 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Project Location (also see attached map): Northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue — APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 & 90. Project Description: A review of a proposal to construct a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,700 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad located within area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast comer of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 & 90. The project also involves a proposal to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to increase the allowable floor area ratio from .35 to .5 within Area 5 of the specific plan and a Tree Removal Permit to remove existing trees. 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 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. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. Date of Determination Adopted By E6—E8 Pg175 BLUM I COLLINSUP May 22, 2017 Dominick Perez, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 dominick.perez(2,cityofrc.us Via Email & U.S. Mail Aon Center 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4880 Los Angeles, California 90017 213.572.0400 phone 213.572.0401 fax CITyoFRAUCHo CUCAMO NGq MAY 2 3 2017 RECEIVED , PEA Re: California Environmental Quality Act Comments on 4`h and Utica ��l �v Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Perez and the City of Rancho Cucamonga: On behalf of the Golden State Environmental & Social Justice Alliance, a California Social Purpose Corporation, Entity #C4017878, this is to comment under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the above -captioned proposed distribution center for the lot at the northeast corner of 4s' Street and Utica Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("the Project"). The Project is a 232,058-square-foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,500 square feet of office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprising five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which contains an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at. Our comments appear in the order in which matters appear in the MND, and are supplemented by the continents of Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise ("S WAPE"), submitted herewith. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires an Environmental Impact Report ("E&') "whenever it considers approval of a proposed project that `may have a significant effect on the environment."' Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. V. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1601, quoting Pub. Resources Code § 21100. As you also know, CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR "whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75 (emphasis added); see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123. There is a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on air quality, biological resources, and greenhouse gases. EXHIBIT R E6—E8Pg176 Dominick Perez, City of Rancho Cucamonga May 22, 2017 Page 2 Air Quality Our comments are supplemented by those of SWAPS, submitted herewith, which are incorporated by reference and which should be responded to during the City's process on the MND. See Attachment A (including letter from SWAPE with CalEEMod and AERSCREEN output files). Subtopic b. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? As you note, the South Coast Air Basin is non -attainment for ozone, PMro and PM2.5. Construction Emissions. The MND concedes that cumulative impacts from construction emissions will be significant as to NOx, ozone and both PMio and PM2.5, but these impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels based on implementing certain mitigation measures. There is no substantial evidence these mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. In particular, we note that regarding these measures, there is no substantial evidence that emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels: 6. All construction equipment will be maintained in good operating condition: There is no requirement for Tier 4 or even Tier 2 construction equipment here. There is no substantial evidence this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 7. Construction contractors must show that they're using low -emission equipment or that doing so isn't feasible: What assumptions did RK Engineering use in its air quality and HRA modeling regarding this equipment? Again, there is not even a Tier 2 requirement here, there are no standards for what is "feasible," and there is no substantial evidence this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 8. Construction contractors shall use electric or clean fitel equipment "where feasible. " See our comment above regarding feasibility. There is no evidence this measure as drafted or implemented will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 9. Construction crews shall, according to a statement in the construction grading plans, shut off equipment when not in use: A statement in the construction grading plans is not enforceable by the City, and there is no evidence this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 10. All asphalt must meet the performance standards of South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD') Rule 1108: this is required anyway, and there is no evidence this measure will reduce emissions, 11. Paints and coatings shall meet the standards in SCAQMD Rule 1113, and shall be applied by hand or by high -volume, low-pressure spray. This would reduce VOCs. We don't see how it will reduce emissions ofNOx, ozone, PMro, or PM2.5. E6—E8 Pg177 Dominick Perez, City of Rancho Cucamonga May 22, 2017 Page 3 Measures 12, 13 and 14 are also required anyway, and would only reduce PMto or possibly PM2.5 emissions, and there is no evidence they would do so even for these pollutants to a level of less than significant. Operational I missions. You concede cumulative impacts from the buildout of the General Plan will be significant but that they are subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations from the Final Program EIR ("FPEIR"), and that several measures will make cumulative impacts insignificant. This is not based on substantial evidence for the reasons discussed below: 15. Preferential parking for HOVs and shuttle services. There is no actual provision for how many preferential parking spaces are to be provided, if any. There is no substantial evidence this measure will reduce emissions. The bulk of the emissions from the Project will come from trucks, not cars, HOVs or shuttle services accessing the site. 16. Schedule truck deliveries &tying off-peak hours. There is no provision for how this is to happen, and it is doubtful that a distribution center will be able to limit trick deliveries to off-peak hours. Any conclusion this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels is not based on substantial evidence. 17. Improve thermal integrity of buildings. There is no concrete provision for the logistics center meeting any insulation standard here. Any conclusion this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels is not based on substantial evidence. 21. 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). This violates a California Air Resources Board ("CARB") rule, which prohibits idling for over five minutes. See 13 CCR § 2485. There is no substantial evidence this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Subtopic d. World the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The answer, according to a properly done Health Risk Screening Assessment, is yes, as S WAPE's analysis shows. Therefore, an EIR with a full-blown Health Risk Assessment, using proper parameters and SCAQMD and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") guidance, should be prepared. The MND is improper because there is a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on humans, which is relevant both for this subtopic as to Air Quality and as to subtopic c under CEQA's Mandatory Findings of Significance, "Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?" E6—E8 Pg178 Dominick Perez, City of Rancho Cucamonga May 22, 2017 Page 4 Bioloeical Resource Subtopic a. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The site contains Delhi sands, and is therefore potential habitat to the endangered Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly. Your consultant has concluded that the fly would not be present because the area is covered by gravel and cement and the nearest fly was detected over 3 miles away. This is a fly. There are all sorts of reasons it may be present without having been detected. The entire area this fly covers is 40 square miles, and the Delhi sands formation is 97% destroyed. Any appearance of these sands, and covering over of them, is therefore significant. Regarding the burrowing owl, you did no protocol -level survey for them, so the fact that it was not detected is not dispositive. While your mitigation measures call for a survey according to the California Department of Fish & Wildlife ("CDFW") Staff Report, you do not provide for qualified biologists until owls are discovered onsite. Surveys during the non -breeding season are not adequate, and you have not provided for breeding season surveys. See Staff Report at 6, second paragraph (surveys during non -breeding season are "typically inconclusive.")' You also define the avian nesting season as lasting from February 1 to August 31, which isn't accurate according to CDFW, which considers it to run from January 1 (due to raptors) to September 1. See Attachment B hereto. Subtopic e. Will the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Your Arborist Report acknowledges there are 128 mature trees which will all be removed under the Project. Of these mature trees, 4 are heritage trees meaning they are 20 inches or greater in diameter at 4.5 feet. You propose to remove these trees, even though three are on the edge of the Project site. You say that as mitigation, each tree removed will be replaced with a tree of minimum 15-gallon size. Your approach violates the City Municipal Code in at least three ways. First, Municipal Code § 17.16.080.I requires that the Planning Director consider several factors in deciding whether to allow removal of over 5 trees. Among those factors are (iii) the number of trees existing in the neighborhood and the impact of removal on the existing character of the area and property values, and (vi) whether the trees constitute a significant natural resource of the City. Subsection J then requires the Planning Director to make the finding that "For a development project every effort has been made to incorporate the trees into the design of the project and the only appropriate alternative is I The CDFW Staff Report should be part of your administrative record for this Project since you have relied upon it. E6—E8 Pg179 Dominick Perez, City of Rancho Cucamonga May 22, 2017 Page 5 the removal of the tree." There is simply no indication that any effort has been made to incorporate the trees into the design of the Project — not even the heritage trees. Second, Municipal Code § 17.80.040.13 provides that on heritage trees, "relocation to another location on the site is the preferred alternative subject to a written report by a landscape architect or arborist on the feasibility of transplanting the tree." There was no feasibility finding in the Arborist Report. Third, if relocation was impossible — a finding you cannot make at this point — Code § 17.80.040.13 requires "replacement with the largest nursery -grown trees available as determined by the planning director or planning commission." There is no evidence in the record that the largest trees available are 15-gallon size, and we sincerely doubt this is the case. Greenhouse Gas Emissions We incorporate SWAPE's comments, attached, as our own. We also note that the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold you have adapted from the SCAQMD was developed under AB 32. The Legislature has since passed SB32 calling for further greenhouse gas ("GHG") reductions, and the 3,000 MTCO2e standard may be too lenient. You have not addressed SB32 or Executive Order S-3-05 targets in your Negative Declaration, and the State must comply with them during the life of the Project. You have no demonstration on how this will be feasible. We also note that among the mitigation measures you should have considered but did not was providing electric charging capabilities for tricks at the distribution center. Noise Construction Noise: Subtopics a. and d. You claim the impact from construction noise will not be significant based on your consultant's statements that (1) noise levels will diminish from the construction site at 6 dBA per doubling of distance, and (2) the City's construction noise is exempted by ordinance. The first assertion does not provide substantial evidence for a conclusion that noise impacts will be less than significant: your consultant notes that some pieces of construction equipment you undoubtedly will use have a noise level of 92 or 95 dBA at 50 feet (see Noise Impact Analysis, Table 6); therefore, at 200 feet the noise can still reach 80 dBA, and as you note, the nearest apartments are 170 feet away. The second statement does not provide substantial evidence for a conclusion that construction noise will have a less than significant impact either: Municipal Code § 17.66.050(D)(4) says construction noise is exempt from regulation when noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent residential property line. Noise levels will reach 80 dBA or higher when only one of many pieces of construction equipment is in use. There is therefore substantial evidence to support a fair argument there will be a significant impact, and an EIR is required. E6—E8 Pg180 Dominick Perez, City of Rancho Cucamonga May 22, 2017 Page 6 Operational Noise: Subtopic a. On operational noise, your consultant apparently modeled sound inputs from "the trucks' diesel engines, exhaust systems, braking, and forklifts." This excludes major sources of noise that come from distribution centers, such as hitching and unhitching of trailers, trash compactors, and back-up beepers: noises known to be disturbing to residents hundreds of feet away from distribution centers. See Attachment C (combined comments of multiple residents on the potential noise from the Sycamore Canyon Business Park Buildings I and 2 EIR, based on their experience of existing noise from distributions centers hundreds of feet away). Conclusion Please advise us when the City will be taking action on this Project (via the Planning Commission or the City Council or both), at collins(a.blumcollins.com and bentley_(a).blumcollins.com, and add us to your notification list for all future CEQA actions under Public Resources Code § 21092.2 Thank you for your consideration. E6-E8 Pg181 S W A P E Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 2911 Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949)887-9013 mh a ee ma nn Ccaswaoe. com May 22, 2017 Hannah Bentley Blum Collins, LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., 481h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject: Comments on the Fourth and Utica LP Warehouse Project Dear Ms. Bentley, We have reviewed the April 2017 Initial Study (IS) and associated attachments for the Fourth and Utica LP Project ("Project") located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project would involve the construction of an approximately 232,058-square-foot warehouse logistics building containing 26,500 square feet of -office space and 205,358 square feet dedicated to the warehousing use on a property comprised of five (5) parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres) which currently contains an abandoned parking lot and a vacant pad located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue. Our review concludes that IS fails to adequately evaluate the Projects Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts. As a result, emissions and health impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. A Project -specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the air quality and potential health impacts the Project may have on the surrounding environment. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS for the Project relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2013.2.2 ("CaIEEMod").1 CaIEEMod provides recommended default values based on site specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and 1 CaIEEMod Model 2013.2.2 Website Archive, avollable at: htto://www.acimd.gov/caleemod/download-model- 2013 5/22/2017 08-LIASAltfbmment Letter -Attach. A -Page 7 typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project -specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.' Once all the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and make known which default values were changed as well as provide a justification forthe values selected.' When reviewingthe Project's CalEEMod output files, which are located in the Fourth and Utica LP Warehouse Air Quality Study, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Study ("Air Quality Study"), we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS and are not consistent with guidance set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for high -cube warehouse projects. As a result, emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project are greatly underestimated. A Project -specific EIR should be prepared to adequately assess the potential impacts that construction and operation of the Project may have on regional and local air quality and global climate change. Failure to Account for Demolition of Existing Structures According to the IS, "approximately two-thirds of the project site contains an abandoned parking lot and approximately one-third of the site contains an undeveloped gravel pad with non-native ruderal plant species... which will be removed for development of the proposed project" (pp. 20). Therefore, In order to be consistent with what is proposed in the IS, and in order to provide the most conservative analysis, as required by CEQA, the Project's construction emissions should have been modeled assuming demolition of the existing parking lot and undeveloped gravel pad. Review of the Project's CaIEEMod output files, however, demonstrates that this is not the case (Air Quality Study, pp. 92-94, pp. 116-118, pp. 140-142). By failing to model the Project's emissions assuming demolition of the existing parking lot and gravel pad, the IS not only underestimates emissions resulting from demolition activities, but it also underestimates emissions resulting from the additional hauling trips needed to transport the demolition debris from the Project site, which would increase fugitive dust as well as other pollutant emissions associated with truck travel. As is demonstrated in the updated CaIEEMod model discussed in the sections below (output files attached to this letter for reference), transport of demolished materials off -site would result in a total of approximately 2,346 additional hauling trips. Therefore, by failing to account for the proposed Project's demolition activities, emissions from sources such as diesel exhaust and fugitive dust associated with the demolition of the parking lot and gravel pad are greatly underestimated. As such, we find the Project's CaIEEMod model to be inaccurate and unreliable for determining Project significance. 'C@lEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User's Guide, pp. 2, 9, available at: htto://www.aamd.gov/caleemod/download- model-2013 3 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User's Guide, pp. 7, 13, available at: htto://www.aamd.gov/caleemod/download- model-2013 (A key feature of the CaIEEMod program is the "remarks" feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a "user defined" value. These remarks are included in the report.) 5/22/2017 (SAEFWl lfflamment Letter -Attach. A -Page 8 Incorrectly Assumes Unrefrigerated Warehouse Land Use The IS's CaIEEMod model assumes that the Project's proposed warehouse will be exclusively unrefrigerated, and as a result, the Project's operational emissions may be grossly underestimated. According to the CaIEEMod output files, the Project's proposed warehouse land use was modeled as "Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail" (see excerpt below) (Air Quality Study, pp. 91, pp. 115, pp. 139). 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga San aemard1no-South Coast County, Summer Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage lanO Urea Spe MaMc Lot Arn00e fl0arOw .Area Popu6on UnreMOersiaO WareMuseNO Pall 23562 1000sp5 i 5.41 Men 0 O6rer AxpaaR SURacn 2,10 Ave 2.10 91,436.00 0 ._•____.._.•._•_•__.__•_._._..e______________________________~-__--_••___--•--_—•-_-••-__--f----------_y.....-.._.._.__.-. .__.....-._._.. 6"r Na AOM1a69urpces 66.13 100DW i 1.60 66.132.00 0 Pa00M Lot rr.o6 ewes 2.e5 Assuming that the Project's proposed warehouse will be composed of entirely unrefrigerated warehouse space, however, is incorrect, as nothing in the IS indicates that the future tenants of the Project's warehouse are currently known. Forthis reason, it can be reasonably assumed that at least a portion of the proposed warehouse land uses will be made up of refrigerated warehouses, and therefore, should be modeled as such. Thus, assuming that the warehouse will be unrefrigerated is unsubstantiated. Since the IS did not indicate that the future tenants of the proposed warehouse are known and because CEQA requires that the most conservative analysis be conducted, a portion of the warehouse building should have been modeled as refrigerated space, and the other portion as unrefrigerated space in order account for the additional emissions that refrigeration requirements could generate. By modeling the Project's emissions assuming that no refrigerated warehouses will operate on -site, the IS greatly underestimates the actual emissions that would occur once the proposed Project is operational. Refrigerated warehouses release more air pollutants and GHG emissions when compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for several reasons. First, warehouses equipped with cold storage (refrigerators and freezers, for example) are known to consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage." Second, warehouses equipped with cold storage typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer, even up to an hour, when compared to unrefrigerated hauling trucks.' Lastly, according to a July 2014 Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results 4 Managing Energy Costs in Warehouses, Business Energy Advisor, available at: http://bizenergyadvisor.com/warebouses 5 "Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks," p. 8, ovailoble at: htti)://www.transportation.anl.gov/­pdfs/"TA/373.odf 5/22/2017 CMErSTAl4Jmment Letter -Attach. A -Page 9 and Usage presentation prepared by the SCAQMD, it was found that hauling trucks that require refrigeration result in greater truck trip rates when compared to non -refrigerated hauling trucks.' As is discussed by the SCAQMD, "CEQA requires the use of 'conservative analysis' to afford 'fullest possible protection of the environment."" As a result, the most conservative analysis should be conducted. With this in mind, the proposed Project should be modeled as "Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail," or at the very least, a portion of the proposed building should be modeled as "Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail," with the remaining portion of the building modeled as "Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail," so as to take into consideration the possibility that future tenants may require both cold storage and non -cold storage. By not including refrigerated warehouses as a potential land use in the air quality model, the Project's operational emissions may be grossly underestimated, as the future tenants are currently unknown. Unless the Project Applicant can demonstrate that the future tenants of these proposed buildings will be limited to unrefrigerated warehouse uses, exclusively, it should be assumed that a mix of cold and non - cold storage will be provided on -site. A Project -specific EIR should be prepared to account for the Possibility of refrigerated warehouse needs by future tenants. Use of Incorrect Fleet Mix Percentage The Project's CaIEEMod model relies upon the vehicle fleet mix disclosed in the Project's Trip Generation Analysis to model the Project's operational mobile -source emissions. However, our review demonstrates that the vehicle fleet mix provided in the Trip Generation Analysis is incorrect and inconsistent with SCAQMD recommendations. As a result, the Project's operational mobile -source emissions are underestimated. The Trip Generation Analysis provides a memorandum that discusses potential trip generation rates for the proposed Project. According to the Trip Generation Analysis, the Project's fleet mix percentages were based off of the SCAQMD's "trip generation study to identify trip generation rates for high cube uses" (p. 1). However, the Trip Generation Analysis never clearly specifies which AQMD survey it is basing Its fleet mix percentages on. All the Trip Generation Analysis states is that, "based on the AQMD survey, of the total trip generation, approximately 38.1% are trucks, and the remaining 61.9% is automobile traffic" (p. 1). The table below summarizes the fleet mix provided by the Trip Generation Analysis and used within CaIEEMod to estimate the Project's operational mobile -source emissions (see table below) (Trip Generation Analysis, p. 1). 6 "Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage' Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July 2014, available at: http://www aomd gov/dog/default-source/ceaa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trio-rate- studv-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.odf?sfvrsn=2, p.7, 9 1 "Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014, available at: htto://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceaa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trio- rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc 6-19-2014.odf?sfvrsn=2 5/22/2017 GSP-9AR Wment Letter -Attach. A -Page 10 TableA-Proposed Project Trip'Gep6ratidn IgRCuhe.Wa1.rehous1.e 235.620 `TSF Trip Generaticn Rates' 0.076 0.034 0.110 0.037 0.083 0.120 1.680 'PCE MoundlOuLbound SPEN, 69% 31%,, 100% 31% 69%. 100% 60%!50°h� Passenger Cars Recommended MN(%)3 6190%, 6190% 61.901h 61.90% 6t900,6 61.so% 61.90% PPE Facfo 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 PCE Rates 0.047 .0.021 0.068 '0.023 0.051 0.074 1.040 2•AxleTrucks Recommended N11i 6.45% 6.45% 6.45% 6A4 % 6:d5% 6.45% 6.45% PCE Factoe 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 PCE Rates 0.007 0.003 0.011 0.004 0.008 0.012 .CAM 3-Axle Trucks Recommended Miz (%)3 8.65% 8.66% 6,66% 8.55% 8.65%• 855% 8.65% .PCEFactar3 20 20 20 20 2.0 20 20 PCE Rates 0.013 0.006 0.019 0.006 0.014 0.021 0291 4-AxIaTrucks Recommended Mlx(%)3 '22.99°% 22.99% 22.99% 22.99% 22.99% 4.99% 22.99% PCE FaGor 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PCE-Rates '0.052 0.024 0.076 0.026 0.057 0.083 1.159 However, these fleet mix percentages are incorrect and do not accurately reflect the fleet mix percentages recommended by the SCAQMD for high -cube warehouses, and do not accurately represent the percentage of trucks that access a high -cube warehouse on a daily basis. Therefore, the Trip Generation Analysis's assertion that its fleet mix percentages are based on an AQMD survey is entirely unsubstantiated. The SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies assume a truck fleet mix of 40 percent for high -cube warehouses. According to Appendix E. Technical Source Documentation of the CalEEMod User's Guide, "in order to avoid underestimating the number of trucks visiting warehouse facilities," SCAQMD staff "recommends that lead agencies conservatively assume that an average of 40% of total trips are truck trips [(0.48*10+ 0.2*4)/(10+4)=0.4)]." a Therefore, in an effort to remain consistent with guidance set forth by the SCAQMD, a truck fleet percentage of 40%should have been used to estimate the Project's warehouse emissions. Since the future tenant of the warehouse is unknown, the tenant schedule is also likely not known; therefore, a 40 percent truck fleet mix should have been used for the proposed high - cube warehouse building. e 'Appendix E Technical Source Documentation." CalEEMod User's Guide, July 2013, available at: http://www.aa md.gov/docs/d efau It-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trio-rate-study-for-air-auality- analvsis/high-cube-resource-caleemod-appendix-e.pdf?sfvrsn=2. pp. 15 5/22/2017 G.SE'EMMUnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 11 Review of the IS's CalEEMod output files demonstrate that, consistent with the Trip Generation Analysis, a truck fleet (LHD1, MHD, and HHDT) percentage of approximately 38.1% was used, rather than the 40% value recommended by the SCAQMD (Air Quality Study, pp. 110, pp. 134, pp. 159). As a result, the Project's warehouse truck emissions are potentially underestimated. Instead, the following fleet mix percentage should have been applied to the high -cube warehouse building proposed for the Project. Parameter Initial Study Fleet Mix SWAPE Fleet Mix Passenger Cars 61.9% 60.0% High -Cube Warehouse (LDA, LDTI, LDT2) Operational Mobile 2 Axle Trucks (LHDI, LHD2) 6.40% 7.03% Fleet Mix 3 Axle Trucks (MHD) 8.70% 9.33% 4+Axle Trucks (HHDT) 23.0% 23,63% The "Operational Mobile Fleet Mix" percentages for trucks (LHDI, LHD2, MHD, and HHDT) in the table above were adjusted to reflect a truck trip percentage of approximately 40 percent, which is consistent with recommended procedures set forth by SCAQMD staff for high -cube warehouses. This truck fleet mix more accurately represents the number of trips that are likely to occur in relation to the high -cube warehouse during Project operation. As such, an updated air quality analysis should be prepared in a Project -specific EIR that adequately assesses the Project's air quality impacts, assuming the correct fleet mix forthe high -cube warehouse land uses. Incorrectly Applied Fleet Mix Percentage to Trip Type Percentage Not only did the IS rely upon an incorrect truck fleet mix percentage to estimate the Project's mobile - source emissions, but it also input this fleet mix percentage into the CaIEEMod model incorrectly. As a result, the Project's operational mobile -source emissions are both greatly underestimated and inaccurate. As discussed in the previous section, the IS relies upon an incorrect fleet mix, and applies this incorrect fleet mixto the CalEEMod model. Review of the IS's CaIEEMod output files, however, indicate that a car trip percentage of 61.9 percent was also applied to commercial-nonwork (C-NW) trip types to represent the number of passenger car trips that would occur, and a truck trip percentage of 38.1 percent was applied to commercial-work(C-W) trip types to represent the number of truck trips that would occur during Project operation (see excerpt below) (Air Quality Study, pp. 110, pp. 134, pp. 159). use I www«c-.w I WSW" QMWAWMAa W3a MUD I 6.4U ; BAu 0.00 uou 0.0u • 6 C � ane<no„A"wnens.na�es t6.B0 6.d0 6.B11 O.CC O.QO O.O. . 0 lhvehfyerateE -i , • `—�,----' •'..;...-•' 0"' .......F"iee--"-8.40TeoarMgLW .e....--"-"-o .....40 iii5_ 3813 o.60 1ID s BeMuaeN:IUW 8o- --.- ..' .. • 5 • • .__ .•3. •... The application of these percentages to the trip types within CaIEEMod is entirely incorrect. According to Appendix A of the CaIEEMod User's Guide, "the trip type breakdown describes the purpose of the trip 5/22/2017 GSAMgWnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 12 generated at each land use," and "multiplying the total trips for a land use by trip type breakdown percentage yields trips for a given trip type."' This trip type, however, does not specifically apply to vehicle classes, as is assumed by the 15. Commercial -work (C-W) trips are not made by trucks, exclusively, and commercial-nonwork (C-NW) trips are not made by passenger cars, exclusively. Rather, "the commercial -work trip represents a trip made by someone who is employed by the commercial land use sector," which can include trips made by employees in light -duty trucks and passenger cars as well as trips made by vendors in light -duty and heavy-duty trucks.10 Similarly, "the commercial-nonwork trip represents a trip associated with the commercial land use other than by customers or workers," such as "trips made by delivery vehicles of goods associated with the land use."" Therefore, applying a trip percentage of 38.1 percent to C-W trips to represent the number of truck trips that will occur during Project operation is incorrect, as C-W trips include trips made by a mix of vehicle types, including passenger cars. Similarly, applying a trip percentage of 61.9 percent to C-NW trips to represent the number of passenger car trips that will occur during Project operation is incorrect, as C-NW trips include trips made by a mix of vehicle types, including trucks. Due to these reasons, an updated air quality analysis must be prepared In a Project -specific EIR in order to adequately assess the Project's air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. Updated Analysis Indicates Increase in Pollutant Emissions In an effort to accurately estimate the proposed Project's operational emissions, we prepared two updated air models using the most recent CaIEEMod version, CalEEMod.2016.3.1. Two separate models were prepared for the high -cube warehouse building- one to model construction emissions and operational emissions from trucks associated with the high -cube warehouse building, and one to model operational emissions from the Passenger Car (LOA) trips associated with the high -cube warehouse building. Since it is unknown how many tenants will require cold -storage, we conservatively assumed that approximately 15 percent of the warehouse buildings will be made up of refrigerated warehouses. This percentage is consistent with studies conducted by the SCAQMD on composite warehouses within southern California12 and is consistent with assumptions used in other CEQA evaluations prepared for similar projects. We utilized a truck trip rate of 0.64 trips per thousand square foot and a passenger car trip rate of 1.04 trips perthousand square foot for both the refrigerated and unrefrigerated high -cube warehouse land uses, which is consistent with recommendations set forth by the SCAQMD.11 Also consistent with the SCAQMD, we assumed that 40% of these high -cube warehouse vehicle trips would 9 "CaIEEMod User's Guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." SCAQMD, available at: http://www.aamd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-apr)endixa.Pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 20 10 "CaIEEMod User's Guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." SCAQMD, available at: htto://www.acimd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixa.odf?sfvrsn=2, P. 20 11 "CaIEEMod User's Guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CaIEEMod" SCAQMD, available at: htto://www.aamd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixa.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 20 11 "Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage," SCAQMD Stakeholder Working Group, July 17, 2014, available at: htto://www.aamd.gov/docs/default-source/ceaa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trio-rate-studv- for-air-auality-analysis/finalswRO71714.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 15 13 "Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage' Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July 2014, available at: htto://www.aamd.gov/docs/default-source/ceaa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trio-rate- studv-for-air-duality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudvmsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. it 5/22/2017 G%- RWg$§rlment Letter -Attach. A -Page 13 be made by trucks, and we applied the SCAQMD recommended truck fleet mix by axle type to the trucks -only model for the proposed high -cube warehouse (LHDT1, MHD, and HHDT) (see table below).19 SCAQMD Recommended Truck Fleet Mix Truck Type Fleet Mix (%) 4+ Axle Trucks (H H DT) 60.35% 3 Axle Trucks (M HD) 22.71% 2 Axle Trucks (LHD1I 16.94% Total 100.0% Our warehouse building models utilized the fleet mix for passenger cars and trucks that was calculated by SWAPE." Since we modeled the passenger cars and trucks separately, a fleet mix of 100 percent was assigned to LDA in our passenger car model, and our truck model utilized the weighted truck fleet mix calculated by SWAPE. We assigned 100 percent of trips to the C-W trip type with a corresponding trip length of 16.60 miles in the passenger car model. In our truck model, we assigned 100 percent of trips to the C-NW trip type with a corresponding trip length of 40 miles to represent the anticipated truck traffic associated with the proposed Project's buildings. When correct input parameters are used to model emissions from the proposed Project, we find that the Project's construction emissions increase significantly when compared to the IS's model. Furthermore, we find that the Project's construction -related VOC emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional significance threshold of 75 pounds per day (Ibs/day), in conflict with findings in the IS (see table below). Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Ibs/day) Model VOC NO. PM10 PM2.5 IS SWAPE 54.0 96.4 56.9 96.9 6.9 30.0 4.0 12.8 Percent Increase 79% 70% 77% 220% 5CAQMD Regional Threshold (Ibs/day) Threshold Exceeded? 75 Yes 100 No 150 No 55 No As demonstrated in the table above, when correct input parameters are used to model emissions all the construction criteria air pollutant emissions increase. VOC emissions increase by approximately 79 percent and exceed the SCAQMD's established threshold, NO, emissions increase by approximately 70 percent, PM10 emissions increase by approximately 77 percent, and PM2.5 emissions increase by approximately 220 percent. " "Appendix E Technical Source Documentation." CalEEMod User's Guide, July 2013, available ot: htto://www.aq md.pov/docs/default-source/ceqa/h and book/high-cube-warehouse-trio-rate-studv-for-air-auality- analysis/high-cube-resource-caleemod-aooendix-e.odf?sfvrsn=2. pp. 15 35 See the fleet mix percentages provided in the table in the "Use of Incorrect Truck Fleet Mix" section on p. 6 of this comment letter. 5/22/2017 GSE-MR93Rnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 14 Additionally, we find that, when modeled correctly, the Project's operational emissions increase significantly when compared to the IS's model. Furthermore, our updated model demonstrates that the Project's operational N%emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional significance threshold of 55 pounds per day (Ibs/day), in conflict with findings in the IS (see table below). Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Emissions (pounds per day) Operational Activities NO, PM10 PM2.5 Area 0 0 0 Energy 0.6 0 0 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 0.8 3.1 0.8 Mobile (Trucks) 61.9 6.0 2.1 SWAPE's Total Maximum Daily Emissions 63 9 3 IS's Total Maximum Daily Emissions 30 6 2 Percentlncrease 114% 46% 49% SCAQMD Regional Threshold (Ibs/day) 55 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No As demonstrated above, when correct input parameters are used to model emissions, NO, emissions increase by approximately 114%and exceed the SCAQMD's established threshold, PM10 emissions increase by approximately 46%, and PM2.5 emissions increase by approximately 49%. These updated emission estimates demonstrate that when the Project's construction and operational emissions are estimated correctly, the Project would result in significant impacts that were not previously identified in the IS. As a result, a Project -specific EIR should be prepared that includes an updated model to adequately estimate the Project's construction and operational emissions, and additional mitigation measures should be identified and incorporated to reduce these emissions to a less -than -significant level." Additional Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce VOC Construction Emissions Our updated CalEEMod model demonstrates that when the revised Project is adequately evaluated, construction -related VOC (also referred to as ROG) emissions would result in a significant impact. Even just short-term exposure to VOC emissions can cause eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, fatigue, loss of coordination, allergic skin reactions, nausea, and memory impairment." Longer -term exposure can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system.1B These health problems can affect both on -site construction workers and the surrounding community. Therefore, mitigation measures must be identified and incorporated in a Project -specific EIR r6 See mitigation measures listed in section titled "Additional Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions" on p. 22 of this comment letter. These measures would effectively reduce operational NO, emissions, as well as GHG emissions. " https://toxtown.nim.nih.gov/text—version/chemicals.php?id=31. ib Id. 5/22/2017 GWMA93%9nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 15 to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Numerous feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce VOC emissions, including the following, which are routinely identified in other CEQA matters as feasible mitigation measures Use of Zero-VOC Emissions Paint The Project Applicant should consider the use of zero-VOC emission paints, which has been required for numerous projects that have undergone CEQA review. Zero-VOC emission paints are commercially available. Other low-VOC standards should be incorporated into mitigation including use of "super - compliant" paints, which have a VOC standard of less than 10 g/L. Use of Material that Does Not Require Paint Using materials that do not require painting is a common mitigation measure where VOC emissions are a concern. Interior and exterior surfaces, such as concrete, can be left unpainted. Use of Spray Equipment with Greater Transfer Efficiencies Various coatings and adhesives are required to be applied by specified methods such as electrostatic spray, high -volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray, roll coater, flow coater, dip coater, etc. in order to maximize the transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the weight of coating solids adhering to an object to the total weight of coating solids used in the application process, expressed as a percentage. When it comes to spray applications, the rules typically require the use of either electrostatic spray equipment or HVLP spray equipment. The SCAQMD is now able to certify HVLP spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater.19 When combined together, these measures offer a feasible way to effectively reduce the Project's construction -related VOC emissions to a less than significant level. As such, these mitigation measures should be considered in a Project -specific EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS concludes that "no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project" without conducting an actual construction health risk assessment (HRA) (Air Quality Study, p. 6-2). The IS attempts to justify this conclusion by stating, "The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of 'individual cancer risk'. 'Individual Cancer Risk' is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk -assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy- duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result In a long-term (i.e., 70 years) 19 http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits/spray-equipment-transfer-efficiency 10 5/22/2017 Gg��,* RglVnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 16 substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk" (Air Quality Study, p. 6-2). This justification for failing to conduct a quantified construction HRA, however, is incorrect for several reasons. First, simply stating that the Project has a "limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment" and a "short-term construction schedule" does not justify the omission of a construction HRA. According to the SCAQMD, it is recommended that health risk impacts from short-term projects also be assessed. The Guidance document states, "Since these short-term calculations are only meant for projects with limits on the operating duration, these short-term cancer risk assessments can be thought of as being the equivalent to a 30-year cancer risk estimate and the appropriate thresholds would still apply (i.e. for a 5-year project, the maximum emissions during the 5-year period would be assessed on the more sensitive population, from the third trimesterto age 5, afterwhich the project's emissions would drop to 0 for the remaining 25 years to get the 30-year equivalent cancer risk estimate)"." Seeing as Project construction is expected to occur over a 211- day period, it is reasonable to assume that a significant amount of diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known human carcinogen, will be emitted from the exhaust stacks of the 21 pieces of construction equipment the Project proposes to use (Air Quality Study, pp. 97, pp. 98). Thus, a health risk assessment is required to determine whether or not a Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutants. The IS should have conducted some sort of quantitative analysis and should have compared the results of this analysis to applicable thresholds. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provides a specific numerical threshold of 10 in one million for determining a project's health risk impact." Therefore, the IS should have conducted an assessment that compares the Project's construction health risks to this threshold in order to determine the Project's health risk impact. By failing to prepare a health risk assessment, the IS fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the sensitive receptor impacts that may occur as a result of exposure to substantial air pollutants. Second, the omission of a quantified health risk is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing recommendations and guidance on how to conduct health risk assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.2Z This guidance Z0 http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/riskassprociunel5.pdf?sfvrsn=2 p. IX-2 ai http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf7sfvrsn=2 li "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health. Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot soots/hotspots2015.html 11 5/22/2017 GM§)R91RTiment Letter -Attach. A -Page 17 document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk assessment. As previously stated, grading and construction activities for the proposed Project will produce emissions of DPM through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over an approximate 211-day period (Air Quality Study, pp. 97). The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.23 Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines, health risk impacts from Project construction should have been evaluated by the IS. This recommendation reflects the most recent health risk assessment policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from construction should be included in a revised CEQA evaluation for the Project. In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by Project construction to nearby sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening -level health risk assessment. The results of our assessment, as described below, provide substantial evidence that the Project's construction DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously identified. As of 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends AERSCREEN as the leading air dispersion model, due to improvements in simulating local meteorological conditions based on simple input parameters.24 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA` and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (CAPCOA)26 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs"). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site -specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project's construction -related impact to sensitive receptors using the annual PMroexhaust estimates from our updated SWAPE CalEEMod model. The IS states that the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are located within 160 feet, or approximately 50 meters away (Air Quality Study, p. 1-1). The CalEEMod model's annual emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 384 pounds of DPM over the 211-day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation. 23"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot soots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf. p. 8-18 24 "AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,' USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at: htto://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf as "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: htto://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf ""Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects," CAPCOA, July 2009, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wo-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-092df 12 5/22/2017 GSE9§AM�nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 18 grams 384 tbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate (second) = 211 days x Ib x 24 hours x 3,600 seconds = 0.00553 g/s Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00553 grams per second (g/s). Construction activity was simulated as a 11.84-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 264 meters by 181.5 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model -default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generated maximum reasonable estimates of single hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single -hour concentration by 10%." There are residences located approximately 50 meters away from the Project boundary. The single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 3.618 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meter downwind.28 Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.362 µg/m3 for construction. We calculated the excess cancer risk for infant receptors using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the SCACMD. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.29 According to the updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the first two years of life, which represents the infantile stage of life. Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used 951" percentile breathing rates for infants.30 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)" and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below. Z' htto://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf ze See Concord Village AERSCREEN Output Files Combined, pp. 10 zs "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: htto://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot soots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.odf 30 "Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act," June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aomd.gov/docs/default-source/olanning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.odf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available ot:htti)://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot soots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.odf 13 5/22/2017 GSHMAggWrJment Letter -Attach. A -Page 19 Cao- Concentration µg/m3 0.362 DBR Daily breathing rate L/kg-day 1090 EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 ED Exposure Duration years 0.578 AT Averaging Time days 25550 Inhaled Dose (mg/kg-day) 3.1E-06 CPF Cancer Potency Factor 1/(mg/kg-day) 1.1 ASF Age Sensitivity Factor 10 Cancer Risk 3.44E-05 The excess cancer risk to infants during Project construction for the sensitive receptors located 50 meters away is approximately 34.4 in one million. As demonstrated above, the infantile exposure for the sensitive receptor exceeds the 5CAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. As a result, a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by Project construction using site -specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules. It should be noted that our analysis represents a screening -level health risk assessment, which is known to be more conservative, and tends to err on the side of health protection.31 The purpose of a screening -level health risk assessment, however, is to determine if a more refined health risk assessment needs to be conducted. If the results of a screening -level health risk are above applicable thresholds, then the Project needs to conduct a more refined health risk assessment that is more representative of site specific concentrations. Our screening -level health risk assessment demonstrates that construction of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact. As a result, a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to examine the air quality impacts generated by Project construction using site -specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules. An EIR must be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project's health risk impact, and should include additional mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less - than -significant level. Without a refined health risk assessment and mitigation addressing the findings of such an assessment, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may lead to significant public health impacts due to DPM emissions. Additional Mitigation Available to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Our health risk assessment demonstrates that, when Project activities are modeled correctly, construction -related DPM emissions would result in significant air quality and health risk impacts. Therefore, additional mitigation measures must be identified and incorporated in an EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) levels, as well as reduce Criteria Air llhtto://oehha,ca.gov/air/hot soots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.odf p. 1-5 14 5/22/2017 G9P_-9.$/R98Unment Letter -Attach. A -Page 20 Pollutants such as particulate matter.32 Diesel particulate matter ("DPM") is a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion, and is emitted by on -road vehicles and by off -road construction equipment. Mitigation for criteria pollutant emissions should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction emissions. Limit Construction Equipment Idling Beyond Regulation Requirements Heavy duty vehicles will idle during loading/unloading and during layovers or rest periods with the engine still on, which requires fuel use and results in emissions. The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") Heavy -Duty Vehicle Idling Emissions Reduction Program limits idling of diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles to five minutes. Reduction in idling time beyond the five minutes required under the regulation would further reduce fuel consumption and thus emissions. The Project applicant must develop an enforceable mechanism that monitors the idling time to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures The Northeast Diesel Collaborative ("NEDC") is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures: sa • All diesel onroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines that meet EPA 2007 onroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA34 or the California Air Resources Board (CARB)35 to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent. • All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent. • All diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emission standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent for engines 50 horse power (hp) and greater and by a minimum of 20 percent for engines less than 50 hp. • All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra -low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend36 approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less. Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines "http://www.cai)coa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final pdf se Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at: http://www2.epa.Pov/sites/p rod uction/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcifi cation.pdf 24 For EPA's list of verified technology: htto://www3.epa.gov/otag/diesel/verification/verif-list.htm es For CARB's list of verified technology: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm ss Biodiesel lends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/reg/biodieselcompliance.pdf 15 5/22/2017 GgfROBfnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 21 The NEDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA's newer standards is limited." Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.38 These actions include but are not limited to: • Repowering equipment (i.e. replacing older engines with newer, cleaner engines and leaving the body of the equipment intact). Engine repower may be a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy when a vehicle or machine has a long useful life and the cost of the engine does not approach the cost of the entire vehicle or machine. Examples of good potential replacement candidates include marine vessels, locomotives, and large construction machines." Older diesel vehicles or machines can be repowered with newer diesel engines or in some cases with engines that operate on alternative fuels (see section "Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment" for details). The original engine is taken out of service and a new engine with reduced emission characteristics is installed. Significant emission reductions can be achieved, depending on the newer engine and the vehicle or machine's ability to accept a more modern engine and emission control system. It should be noted, however, that newer engines or higher tier engines are not necessarily cleaner engines, so it is important that the Project Applicant check the actual emission standard level of the current (existing) and new engines to ensure the repower product is reducing emissions for PM10. 40 • Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards. Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders. Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.61 Replacements often require some re -engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically there are benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.41 Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Equipment PM emissions from alternatively -fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit devices for engine exhaust after -treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation.41 Below is a table, prepared by the EPA, that summarizes the commonly used retrofit technologies and the typical cost and emission reductions " htto://northeastdiesel.org/pdfIBestPractices4CIean DleselConstructionAuR2012.0df as http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CIeanDieselC0nstructionAug2012.adf 39 htto://www3.epa.gov/otag/diesel/technologies/engines.htm 41 Diesel Emissions Reduction Program (DERA): Technologies, Fleets and Projects Information, available at: htto://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/420P11001 odf 41 htto://www3.epa.gov/otao/diesel/technologies/replacements.htm 42 htto:/Iwww3.epa.gov/ot2 a/diesel/technologies/engines.htm " htto://www3.eoa.gov/otaci/diesel/technologies/index.htm 16 5/22/2017 GgE1,M91387nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 22 associated with each technology.4° It should be noted that actual emissions reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications. Typical Emissions Reductions (percent) Technology Typical Costs ($) PM N% HC CO Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) 20-40 - 40-70 40-60 Material: $600-$4,000 Installation: 1-3 hours Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 85-95 - 85-95 50-90 Material: $8,000-$50,000 Installation: 6-8 hours Partial Diesel Particulate Filter Material: $4,000-$6,000 (pDPF) up to 60 40-75 10-60 Installation: 6-8 hours $10,000-$20,000; Urea Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) - up to 75 - - $0.80/gal Closed Crankcase Ventilation (CCV) varies - - - - Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) - 25-40 - - - Lean NO, Catalyst (LNC) - 5-40 - - $6,500-$10,000 Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures°$ report also proposes the use of electric and/or hybrid construction equipment as a way to mitigate criteria pollutant emissions, such as particulate matter. When construction equipment is powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion are replaced with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. Furthermore, when construction equipment is powered by hybrid -electric drives, emissions from fuel combustion are also greatly reduced and criteria air pollutants would be 100% reduced for equipment running on electricity. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation46 and Komptech USA", which specialize in the mechanical processing equipment like grinders and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid -electric drives is also commercially available from companies such as Caterpillars. For example, Caterpillar reports that during an 8-hour shift, its NE hybrid dozer burns 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional dozer while achieving a 10.3 percent increase in productivity. The NE model burns 6.2 gallons per hour compared to a conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour." Fuel usage and savings are dependent on the make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should calculate project -specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per hour. 44 http://www3.epa.gov/otao/diesel/technologies/retrofits.htm d5 htt wffw__saocoa.orR/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.Ddf 36 Peterson Electric Grinders Brochure, available at: http://www.i3etersoncorp.com/wp- content/uploads/peterson electric grindersl.ocif 67 httos://www.komptech.com/about-komptech/green-efficiency.html 68 http://www.cat.com/en US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-generation.html 09 http://www.cai)coa.org/wp-content/unloads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.odf 17 5/22/2017 GI/RgORnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 23 Institute a Heavy -Duty Off -Road Vehicle Plan CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Meosures54 report recommends that the Project Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with constriction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring hour meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Specifically, prior to the construction of a Project the contractor should submit a certified list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. 51 The list should include the following: 52 • Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible forthe vehicles or equipment. • Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation. • Forthe emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour -meter reading on installation date. Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures53 report recommends that the Project Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Specifically, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a report prior to bringing said equipment on site that includes: 54 • Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. • The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, and EPA/CARB verification number/level. • The Certification Statement55 signed and printed on the contractor's letterhead. so http•//www caocoa org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final pdf 51 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at: http://www2.eya.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-seocification pdf sz USEPA's Construction Fleet Inventory Guide is a useful tool In identifying the information required. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/construction-fleet-inventory-guide odf 53 http•//www caocoa org/wt)-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final odf sa Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at., http://www2.ei3a.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-seocification odf ss Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at. http://www2.eoa.p.ov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-seocification odf The NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A. ku 5/22/2017 GSE-99A93fb i-lient Letter -Attach. A -Page 24 Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a monthly report that, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: se • Hour -meter readings on arrival on -site, the first and last day of every month, and on off -site date. • Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. • Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: o Source of supply o Quantity of fuel o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight). In addition to those measures, we also recommend that the City require the Applicant to implement the following mitigation measures, called "Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,"" that are recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District ("SMAQMD"): 1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency and District a comprehensive inventory of all off -road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. • The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. • The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on -site foreman. • This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off -road equipment. • The District's Equipment List Form can be used to submit this information. • The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. 2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency and District demonstrating that the heavy-duty off -road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet -average 20% NOx reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. • This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory. • Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low - emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. se Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available ot: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification. pdf 57 htto://www.airgualitv.org/ceaa/`Ch3EnhancedExhaustControl 10-2013.odf fiW 5/22/2017 GT R9266nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 25 • The District's Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction. 3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off -road diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. • Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately. Non -compliant equipment will be documented and a summary provided to the lead agency and District monthly. • A visual survey of all in -operation equipment shall be made at least weekly. • A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. 4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or regulations. When combined together, these measures offer a cost-effective way to incorporate lower -emitting equipment into the Project's construction fleet, which subsequently, reduces particulate matter emissions released during Project construction. An EIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions. Furthermore, the Project Applicant needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval to ensure that the Project's construction -related emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions The IS evaluates the Project's greenhouse gas (GHG) impact by comparing the Project's estimated GHG emissions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) screening level threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e/year). Based off this analysis, the IS determines that since the Project's GHG emissions are approximately 2,527 MT CO2e/ year, which is below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e, the Project would have a less than significant GHG impact (Air Quality Study, pp. 7-1). While the IS's method of evaluation is correct, as discussed in the sections above, the IS's CalEEMod model relies upon incorrect input parameters to estimate the Project's criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions, resulting in an underestimation of Project emissions. Therefore, we find the IS's quantitative GHG analysis to be incorrect and unreliable for determining Project significance. As previously stated, the IS's GHG analysis relies upon a flawed CalEEMod model to determine the significance of the Project's GHG impact. Therefore, in an effort to more accurately evaluate the proposed Project's GHG impact, we conducted a simple analysis using the emission estimates provided in our updated CaIEEMod model and SCAQMD guidance. Based on the results of our analysis, discussed 20 5/22/2017 GS&MR91316ITiment Letter -Attach. A -Page 26 below, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed Project may have a significant GHG impact. As such, an EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project's GHG impact, and additional, feasible mitigation should be applied to the Project in an effort to mitigate the Project's GHG emissions to the maximum extent possible. As described in the SCAQMD's Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans, it is recommended that the proposed Project quantify the Project's indirect and direct GHG emissions, and compare these emissions to a screening level threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/years$ Although the City of Rancho Cucamonga has not formally adopted the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, this threshold is designed for application at the project level and thus provides a relevant way of determining the significance of the Project's GHG emissions. The SWAPE model's annual emissions demonstrate that construction of the Project would generate 24 MT CO2e per year (when amortized over 30 years) and operation of the Project would generate a total of 4,734 MT CO2e per year. When the Project's amortized construction emissions and operational emissions from the SWAPE model are combined, we find that the Project's GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold (see table below). Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Proposed Project (MT CO2E) Mobile (Trucks) 3,104 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 455 Energy - Electricity 643 Energy - Natural Gas 120 Area 0.02 Water 301 Waste 111 Amortized Construction Emissions 24 Project Total 4,758 Significance Threshold 3,000 I Exceed? Yes As you can see in the table above, when we compare the updated emissions estimated by SWAPE to the SCAQMD's recommended threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr, we find that the Project's emissions would exceed this threshold, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact. The results of this analysis provide substantial evidence that when the Project's emissions are modeled correctly, the Project's GHG emissions would increase and result in a more severe GHG impact than what was previously identified in ""Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans." SCAQMD, October 2008, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p.5 21 5/22/2017 G,%RV@?nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 27 the 15. Therefore, a Project -specific EIR must be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project's GHG impact, and additional mitigation should be implemented where necessary, as is required by CEO.A. Additional Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project's operational NO, and GHG emissions may present a potentially significant air quality impact. In an effort to reduce these emissions, we identified several additional mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project. Additional mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce operational NO. and GHG emissions include, but are not limited to, the following: • Use passive solar design, such as: 51,61 o Orient buildings and incorporate landscaping to maximize passive solar; heating during cool seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons; and o Enhance natural ventilation by taking advantage of prevailing winds. • Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. • Develop and follow a "green streets guide" that requires: o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt; o Installation of permeable pavement to allow for storm water infiltration; and o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection.61 • Implement Project design features such as: o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight; o Install high-albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane; o Install high -efficiency HVAC with hot -gas reheat; o Install formaldehyde -free insulation; and o Use recycled -content gypsum board. • Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Meet "reach" goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use. • Maximize the use of solar energy including solar panels. • Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. • Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. • Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. 53 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, September 1997. " Butte County Air Quality Management District, Indirect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997. 61 See Irvine Sustainable Travelways "Green Street" Guidelines; www.ci.irvine.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.aso?BloblD=8934: and Cool Houston Plan; www.harc.edu/Proiects/Cool Houston. WA 5/22/2017 GK-M/Rg3? nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 28 • Use CARB-certified or electric landscaping equipment in project and tenant operations; and introduce electric lawn, and garden equipment exchange program. • Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100%of the storm water to infiltrate on -site. In addition to the measures discussed above, the SCAQMD has previously recommended additional mitigation measures for operational N%emissions that result primarily from truck activity emissions, which would also reduce the Project's operational GHG emissions. Measures recommended for the Waterman Logistic Center that are also applicable for this Project's commercial uses include:" • Provide electric vehicle charging stations that are accessible for trucks. Provide electrical hookups at the onsite loading docks and at the truck stops for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. • Provide a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) between trucktraffic and sensitive receptors. • Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the facility. • Design the site such that any check -in point fortrucks is well inside the facility to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility. • On -site equipment should be alternative fueled. • Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization. • Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas. • Should the proposed Project generate significant emissions, the Lead Agency should require mitigation that requires accelerated phase -in for non -diesel powered trucks. For example, natural gas trucks, including Class 8 HHD trucks, are commercially available today. Natural gas trucks can provide a substantial reduction in emissions, and may be more financially feasible today due to reduced fuel costs compared to diesel. In the Final CEQA document, the Lead Agency should require a phase -in schedule for these cleaner operating trucks to reduce project impacts. Finally, additional, feasible mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels.63 GHG emissions are produced during fuel combustion, and are emitted by on -road vehicles and by off -road equipment. Therefore, to reduce the Project's mobile -source GHG emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made. • Neighborhood/Site Enhancements o Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving less and thus a " SCAQMD Comment Letter in Response to MND for the Waterman Logistic Center, January 2018, available at: http://www.aamd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/comment-letters/2015/lanuary/`mndwaterman pdf " http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/u ploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 23 5/22/2017 G$E-RAR0154nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 29 reduction in VMT. The project should provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project should minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls, landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation should be eliminated. • Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (On -Site) o Incorporating bicycle lanes, routes, and shared -use paths into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments can reduce VMTs. These improvements can help reduce peak -hour vehicle trips by making commuting by bike easier and more convenient for more people. In addition, improved bicycle facilities can increase access to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the "catchment area' of the transit stop or station and increasing ridership. Bicycle access can also reduce parking pressure on heavily -used and/or heavily -subsidized feeder bus lines and auto -oriented park -and -ride facilities. • Limit Parking Supply o This mitigation measure will change parking requirements and types of supply within the Project site to encourage "smart growth" development and alternative transportation choices by project residents and employees. This can be accomplished in a multi -faceted strategy: • Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements • Creation of maximum parking requirements • Provision of shared parking • Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost o Unbundling separates parking from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost from the property cost. This removes the burden from those who do not wish to utilize a parking space. Parking should be priced separately from home rents/purchase prices or office leases. • Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program- Voluntary or Required o Implementation of a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program with employers will discourage single -occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The main difference between a voluntary and a required program is: • Monitoring and reporting is not required • No established performance standards (i.e. no trip reduction requirements) o The CTR program should provide employees with assistance in using alternative modes of travel, and provide both "carrots" and "sticks" to encourage employees. The CTR program should include all of the following to apply the effectiveness reported by the literature: • Carpooling encouragement • Ride -matching assistance Preferential carpool parking 24 5/22/2017 G$ fi?c_Mnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 30 • Flexible work schedules for carpools • Half time transportation coordinator • Vanpool assistance • Bicycle end -trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers) • Provide Ride -Sharing Programs o Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project should include a ride -sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. The project can promote ride -sharing programs through a multi -faceted approach such as: • Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles • Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride -sharing vehicles • Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides • Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program o This project can provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to incentivize the use of public transport. The project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project. • Provide End of Trip Facilities o Non-residential projects can provide "end -of -trip" facilities for bicycle riders including showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces. End -of -trip facilities encourage the use of bicycling as a viable form of travel to destinations, especially to work. End -of - trip facilities provide the added convenience and security needed to encourage bicycle commuting. • Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules o Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. • Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing o The project can implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options • Event promotions • Publications • Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program 25 5/22/2017 G,9E-,1UfRs2Wment Letter -Attach. A -Page 31 o The project can provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride -share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. The project should provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles. • Implement Car -Sharing Program o This project should implement a car -sharing project to allow people to have on -demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as -needed basis. User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees. The car -sharing program could be created through a local partnership or through one of many existing car -share companies. Car -sharing programs may be grouped into three general categories: residential- or citywide -based, employer -based, and transit station -based. Transit station -based programs focus on providing the "last -mile" solution and link transit with commuters' final destinations. Residential -based programs work to substitute entire household based trips. Employer -based programs provide a means for business/day trips for alternative mode commuters and provide a guaranteed ride home option. • Provide Employer -Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle o This project can implement an employer -sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees' commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer -sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer's Purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. • Implement Bike -Sharing Program o This project can establish a bike -sharing program to reduce VMTs. Stations should be at regular intervals throughout the project site. • For example, Paris' bike -share program places a station every few blocks throughout the city (approximately 28 bike stations/square mile). • Price Workplace Parking o The project should implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives. o Though similar to the Employee Parking "Cash -Out" strategy, this strategy focuses on implementing market rate and above market rate pricing to provide a price signal for employees to consider alternative modes fortheirwork commute. • Implement Employee Parking "Cash -Out' 26 5/22/2017 G5E-,0J:/Rg9®7nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 32 o The project can require employers to offer employee parking "cash -out." The term "cash -out" is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to the employer. When combined together, these measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower - emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during Project operation. An EIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality and GHG analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce operational emissions to below thresholds. Furthermore, the Project Applicant also needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project's operational emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Jessie Jaeger 27 5/22/2017 G$MAg2Wment Letter -Attach. A -Page 33 JESSIE MARIE JAEGER S WA ' E Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Mobile: (530) 867-6202 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: j cig r�•aye.com EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORN14 LOSANGELES B.S. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES JUNE2014 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA, CA AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING • Calculated roadway, stationary source, and cumulative impacts for risk and hazard analyses at proposed land use projects. • Quantified criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions released during construction and operational activities of proposed land use projects using CalEEMod and EMFAC201I emission factors. • Utilized AERSCREEN, a screening dispersion model, to determine the ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. • Organized presentations containing figures and tables comparing results of particulate matter analyses to CEQA thresholds. • Prepared reports that discuss results of the health risk analyses conducted for several land use redevelopment projects. SENIOR ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Quantified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a "business as usual" scenario for proposed land use projects using CaIEEMod. • Determined compliance of proposed projects with AB 32 GHG reduction targets, with measures described in CARB's Scoping Plan for each land use sector, and with GHG significance thresholds recommended by various Air Quality Management Districts in California. • Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the GHG analyses to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. PROJECTMANAGER: OFF -GASSING OF FORMALDEHYDE FROM FLOORING PRODUCTS • Determined the appropriate standard test methods to effectively measure formaldehyde emissions from flooring products. • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data Produced tables, charts, and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) and to CARB's Phase 2 Standard. • Prepared a final analytical report and organized supporting data for use as Expert testimony in environmental litigation. • Participated in meetings with clients to discuss project strategy and identify solutions to achieve short and long term goals. PROJECT ANALYST: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINANTS EMITTED BY INCINERATOR • Reviewed and organized sampling data, and determined the maximum levels of arsenic, dioxin, and lead in soil samples. • Determined cumulative and hourly particulate deposition of incinerator and modeled particle dispersion locations using GIS and AERMOD. • Conducted risk assessment using guidance set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). • Utilized LeadSpread8 to evaluate exposure, and the potential adverse health effects from exposure, to lead in the environment • Compared final results of assessment to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Recipient Bruins Advantage Scholarship, University of California, Los Angeles SEPT 2010-JUNE2014 • Academic Honoree, Dean's List, University of California, Los Angeles SEPT 2013-JUNE2014 • Academic Wellness Director, UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2013-JUNE2014 • Student Groups Support Committee Member, UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2012 - JUNE2013 5/22/2017 G9E-9M9 Wnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 34 4th and Utica Construction.log start date and time 05/18/17 15:33:50 AERSCREEN 11126 4TH AND UTICA ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH '''* AREADATA *" Emission Rate: 0.553E-02 g/s 0.439E-01 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 264.00 meters 866.14 feet Area Source width: 181.50 meters 595.47 feet vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 2015355 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum wind speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture AERSCREEN output file: 4TH AND UTICA CONSTRUCTION.OUT *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET obtaining surface characteristics... Page 1 5/22/2017 Glj $§Ag Pnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 35 4th and Utica Construction.log Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_O1.pfl creating met files aerscreen_02_O1.sfc & aerscreen_02_O1.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_O1.sfc & aerscreen_03_Ol.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_O1.sfc & aerscreen_04_O1.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 05/18/17 15:34:10 ,::: c* . *.: a: �:: ;: r::. it :: �: *.:; �: r::r- *-t: ;:::,•a::: *;::. ^ ...... _ ..., �� r... Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 i;i:4:::'.: �: ::'.: trok k:k :k k':*�:*': *i: is *•i: *':i:i:';i;';';Y::ki:;:': :: ::': is i:':': it i; it :'<i: ir':'r Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******* WARNING MESSAGES ***x'*** *** NONE _** r;:k:; t; r: �::k :k :r :::r ek *:•nY fnS'.: t::k>: r::� :::: s::k �: r::k a; x :k it �r k t::k:: *:k :k:k r: r::'::k f»k f::::::: Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******* WARNING MESSAGES " " *** NONE *** tr::::;:t:*�:::::�:::::;:.:;:a;r:;;�:::a:xa::•ntt:tr>:d:d:d:*t:r:;:r; :: �: >::: tr*t:*d: e::s*:r>k :k,k t: Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ••^^^^^^^ WARNING MESSAGES ******** ** . NONE ::** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 *** **** WARNING MESSAGES ="'****** Page 2 5/22/2017 Gg )R996fnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 36 4th and Utica Construction.log NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 is is is:x:::x ta< WARNING MESSAGES •• ^ NONE '• •• •• ?:'.: :: is ?: b � i.-i: a?: :x is X:x X :': is ?.• is �. is ::d'.: �?: is ?.• is i::x b is i; {•'..- �- �- �- �- �-t'..-i: is is is {• :Y'::x Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *-•• ,................xt:�:rat:i;?:ist:,•:t:t:x::t:�t::;-i;�t:t:t;:x�•t:::t:r;: t.-t:?: t: ?; r. t; ,; is i;i+x is is Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 WARNING MESSAGES '•^^''°� x:x,; *** NONE ^^^ Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 winter sector 35 WARNING MESSAGES NONE ••••^ Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ia: c-i.-i:&fid-�-d-': i:':ia:kkia.-i: is&�-�:x'a'ahi: &:x t<t rt:S is �'.:': :x ki::xbht: b•uh?:{R•s Processing Wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 WARNING MESSAGES ••^- NONE is ?:'.: is is i<i:h� �'.-u:<isi::xie:x•:•t<?:'.•':':?:--�•�t:fii: •�i<': �•i: is i:kt'.:*i; is i:rti: is �:.•:x�d� Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 Page 3 5/22/2017 G�9/RggWment Letter -Attach. A -Page 37 4th and Utica Construction.log WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 spring sector 10 WARNING MESSAGES NONE Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 spring sector 15 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *,.* Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD FinishesSuccessfullyfor FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 spring sector 25 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 spring sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ****,*** Page 4 5/22/2017 GgEOA920nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 38 4th and Utica Construction.log •• •• ^ NONE• •• •• ':?: <-u� sR :: h i; i; skis RSY sY?r:Y?: ?:'s4i: ?a � •• •• : '-:--v .v:..v:.:.:.:....:.:. Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 WARNING MESSAGES i:?:,Y NONE is is is ?:?r?: is ish*iti<:•'-*****?:?:,Y**is****is,Ya4is**i:*is*".**?................kisisi... Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE ^ is � is k is is?: is i::': is is is � i; is ?: i:'.: � ?:?: t- i:'- ir,k •; ?..?. i �. i �.x x.. is?: ;k is is :. ^ .. .. .,'.r f' ?r,Y'.: :k Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 WARNING MESSAGES ^•••• NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 WARNING MESSAGES **i` NONE *** is?: � :•r fi?r sY sY?:?: �- � �-A :Y i:': is � -.Y � � -.Y :.- is t-?: d � � t. ay. is is k,Y,Y t� is i; :Y :': :::Y is i; is is 4'.:'.: Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 WARNING MESSAGES ^^^^^••^^ *** NONE ^^^ is fi--:: is i;fiink,Y it i-fifi�fifi?;fii;?:fififi,;fii.-i;i; it sk sY s'rfi*fi?: i<fi irfiir ?: sY?:fi'.: :Y irfi R4k•� Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 Page 5 5/22/2017 GSHM99 4nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 39 4th and Utica Construction.log WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE ?:ra::::: ta::Y:::Y:Y:Y?:?:?a:?:at::Y::::�::>•:r.::a?ar:r:?:?:?::: ?: :r?: :r?::Y :Y:Y?;?;:: e: ra:?::Y Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 summer sector 35 WARNING MESSAGES ••••^ NONE ?•••^ Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 WARNING MESSAGES *?* NONE * Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 WARNING MESSAGES ** NONE ___ Page 6 5/22/2017 GS A920nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 40 4th and Utica Construction.log Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ^••••^^^^ WARNING MESSAGES ••••^^^`::i. *** NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** Processing wind flow Sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 WARNING MESSAGES ••** NONE *** :: **?:?:****ir**'.:*?:Ri»4**'.:?.•****::?:*.?: *in: *i:?:?: is?: ?ar* i:*?: *i:***s: * Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 35 WARNING MESSAGES •••••••^••••^ *** NONE *** - FLOWSECTOR ended 05/18/17 15:34:42 REFINE started 05/18/17 15:34:42 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE *** REFINE ended 05/18/17 15:34:45 ****�•*?:*�:.•?;**:<*:r*******i:***i;***:.*:: •: i; i; is is**:: i;**:r Page 7 5/22/2017 GTR936§nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 41 4th and Utica Construction.log AERSCREEN Finished successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details Ending date and time 05/18/17 15:34:46 Page 8 5/22/2017 GTHM920nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 42 4th and Utica construction_max_conc_distance.txt Concentration Distance Elevation Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.31714E+01 1.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34065E+01 25.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36184E+01 50.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38023E+01 75.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39661E+01 100.00 0.00 winter. 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41150E+01 125.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42022E+01 150.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42061E+01 151.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30561E+01 175.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24100E+01 200.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20140E+01 225.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17241E+01 250.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15164E+01 275.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13600E+01 300.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12344E+01 325.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11272E+01 350.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10351E+01 375.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95466E+00 400.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88484E+00 425.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82305E+00 450.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1 5/22/2017 G9PM?6ment Letter -Attach. A -Page 43 4th and Utica Construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.76875E+00 475.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71958E+00 500.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67612E+00 525.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63685E+00 550.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60136E+00 575.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56916E+00 600.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53983E+00 625.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51280E+00 650.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48817E+00 675.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46557E+00 700.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44490E+00 725.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42554E+00 750.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40743E+00 775.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39071E+00 800.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37521E+00 825.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36070E+00 850.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34724E+00 875.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33461E+00 900.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32263E+00 925.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31141E+00 950.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30087E+00 975.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 2 5/22/2017 GSHAWWment Letter -Attach. A -Page 44 4th and Utica Construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.29090E+00 1000.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9_000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28148E+00 1025.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27259E+00 1050.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26419E+00 1075.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25624E+00 1100.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24871E+00 1125.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24152E+00 1150.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23465E+00 1175.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22812E+00 1200.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22193E+00 1225.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21600E+00 1250.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21035E+00 1275.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20496E+00 1300.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19982E+00 1325.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19490E+00 1350.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19019E+00 1375.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18565E+00 1400.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18129E+00 1425.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17711E+00 1450.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17309E+00 1475.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16924E+00 1500.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 3 5/22/2017 G9F_939Pnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 45 4th and Utica Construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.16553E+00 1525.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16194E+00 1550.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15847E+00 1575.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15512E+00 1600.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15190E+00 1625.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14879E+00 1650.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14582E+00 1675.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14293E+00 1700.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14013E+00 1725.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13744E+00 1750.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13483E+00 1775.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13232E+00 1800.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12987E+00 1825.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12751E+00 1850.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12523E+00 1875.01 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12301E+00 1900.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12086E+00 1924.99 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11877E+00 1950.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11675E+00 1975.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11480E+00 2000.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11290E+00 2025.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 4 5/22/2017 GSHM9991nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 46 4th and Utica Construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.11105E+00 2050.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10926E+00 2075.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10752E+00 2100.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10583E+00 2125.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10418E+00 2150.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10257E+00 2175.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10100E+00 2200.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99482E-01 2225.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98001E-01 2250.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96559E-01 22.75.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95145E-01 2300.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93768E-01 2325.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92427E-01 2350.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91120E-01 2375.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89846E-01 2400.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1:000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88605E-01 2425.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87395E-01 2450.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86219E-01 2475.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.,0 2.0 0.85070E-01 2500.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83947E-01 2525.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82851E-01 2550.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 5 5/22/2017 GSEa ROUnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 47 4th and Utica Construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.81781E-01 2575.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80740E-01 2600.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79725E-01 2625.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78735E-01 2650.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77767E-01 2675.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76819E-01 2700.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75892E-01 2725.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74986E-01 2750.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74101E-01 2775.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73236E-01 2800.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72390E-01 2825.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71563E-01 2850.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70755E-01 2875.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69965E-01 2900.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69192E-01 2925.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68435E-01 2950.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67695E-01 2975.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66970E-01 3000.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66260E-01 3025.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65565E-01 3050.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64886E-01 3075.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 6 5/22/2017 G$SSJWROZnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 48 4th and Utica Construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.64220E-01 3100.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63569E-01 3125.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62931E-01 3150.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62305E-01 3174.99 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61692E-01 3200.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61618E-01 3225.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61022E-01 3250.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60437E-01 3275.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59864E-01 3300.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59303E-01 3325.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58754E-01 3350.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58215E-01 3375.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57687E-01 3400.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57170E-01 3425.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56663E-01 3450.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56165E-01 3475.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55678E-01 3500.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55200E-01 3525.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54731E-01 3550.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54272E-01 3575.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53821E-01 3600.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 7 5/22/2017 GaEaRgMnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 49 4th and Utica construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.53378E-01 3625.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52945E-01 3650.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52519E-01 3675.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52101E-01 3700.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51691E-01 3725.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51289E-01 3750.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50895E-01 3775.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50507E-01 3800.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50127E-01 3825.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49753E-01 3850.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49387E-01 3875.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49027E-01 3900.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48673E-01 3925.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48326E-01 3950.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47985E-01 3975.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47650E-01 4000.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47321E-01 4025.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46998E-01 4050.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46680E-01 4075.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46368E-01 4100.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46061E-01 4125.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 8 5/22/2017 G$EaNc9unment Letter -Attach. A -Page 50 4th and Utica Construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.45760E-01 4150.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45463E-01 4175.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45172E-01 4200.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44885E-01 4225.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44604E-01 4250.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44327E-01 4275.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44054E-01 4300.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43786E-01 4325.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43523E-01 4350.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43264E-01 4375.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43008E-01 4400.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42757E-01 4425.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42511E-01 4450.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42268E-01 4475.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42028E-01 4500.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41793E-01 4525.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41561E-01 4550.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41333E-01 4575.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41108E-01 4600.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40887E-01 4625.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40669E-01 4650.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 9 5/22/2017 G$E (_QNnment Letter -Attach. A -Page 51 4th and Utica construction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.40455E-01 4675.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40243E-01 4700.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40035E-01 4725.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39830E-01 4750.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39628E-01 4775.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39429E-01 4800.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39233E-01 4825.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39039E-01 4850.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38849E-01 4875.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38661E-01 4900.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38476E-01 4925.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38293E-01 4950.00 0.00 winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38113E-01 4975.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37935E-01 5000.00 0.00 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 10 5/22/2017 GSEP07nment Letter -Attach. A -Page 52 m 01 I m 00 .0 t0 N N 00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage ' 'Land Uses. " - -'.jl. '-' """ ` : '.Size '- I_. ' Metric' _ J Lot Acreage- " I FIobr:Surface Area I, Population Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 35.34 100Dsgft i 0.81 i 35,343.00 0 Unrefri eraled Warehouse -No Rail 200.28 1000sgft 4.60 200,277.00 0 r Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.10 Acre i 2.10 i 91,476.00 0 • r ___ __ ________________________________________r_________________________________;__________.._.. Other Non -As halt Surfaces 65.13 1000sgft i 1.50 65,130.00 , 0 Parking Lot 317.00 Space 2.85 126,800.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 53 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEM0d.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM Project Characteristics - Land Use - Assumed 15 percent of warehouse land use would be refrigerated. Construction Phase - Included demolition phase to account for demolision activities on -site. Length of each construction phase consistent with IS's air quality model. Demolition - Used Project site measurements to obtain area square footage. Grading - Reflects input parameters used in IS's air quality model. Architectural Coating - Reflects input parameters reflected in IS's air quality model. Vehicle Trips - 0.64 Truck trip rate and 40 mile trip length for trips assocated with high cube warehouse as recommended by SCAQMD. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Area Coating - Fleet Mix - Truck Trips Only. Table'Name -. - '. Column Name` _ Default Value 'I New. Value .- IblArchitecluralCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior 117,810.00 125,418.00 iblConstructionPhase NumDays 1 20.00 ; 24.00 1blConstructionPhase NumDa s 300.00 ; 80.00 IblConstructionPhase NumDa s 30.00 40.00 tblFleetMix _ HHD ! 0.06 0.60 . ........................... :. .............---------- ___________ ___________ .._-.--•.-_________ tblFleetMix HHD 1 0.06 0.60 tblFleetMix LDA 1 0.53 0.00 ............................. ----------------------------- -_____________________________;____________--•---•-•.-•__ tblFleetMix LDA r 0.53 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 + 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.00 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- }_____________________________;-•--.•_-.-•-____________-- 1blFleetMix LDT2 1 0.18 0.00 ........................................................... .}_____________________________;_•-__-___-•-----------••__ tblFleetMix LDT2 1 0.18 0.00 .............................. ......'._-- _---- .__.;__..._..--- .____---••_ _--._.--- -•------.- tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.17 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 54 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 35 tblFleetMix 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 0.02 0.17 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM ..............................¢. _} _.1. tblFleetMix LHD2 I 6.1610e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 6.1610e-003 0.00 _____________________________ ----------------------------- }_____________________________;_____-_--.-__--_--------.- tblFleetMix MCY 6.5340e-003 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 6.5340e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV . 0.14 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 1.3510e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 1.3510e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 1 0.23 tblFleetMix MHD 1 0.02 0.23 tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3020e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3020e-003 1 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 8.3500e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 8.3500e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS I 1.8460e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8460e-003 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 100.00 11.86 tblGrading AcresOi6ing 0.00 11.86 tblGrading Materiallmported 0.00 30,000.00 r tblLandUse Buildin S aces uareFeet 35,340.00 35,343.00 -_---•_______________________ ............................. }_____________________________--_________________--__-_.- tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 1 200,280.00 200,277.00 tblLandUse LandUseS uareFeet 35,340.00 35,343.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 200,280.00 200,277.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 ; 2017 _____________________________y_____.__.____________________ }__-__________________________t____________--_-__________ tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 1 6.90 40.00 -------- -------_ -•--•---_ ----------4 ----------- -----------41 --------- _-- __.. tblVehicleTrips _ CNW_TL 6.90 40.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 55 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM tblVehicleTrips CNW_TiP 41.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 ; 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 ; 0.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 ; 0.00 .............................. Y•---------------------------- ------------------------------ +---.---------------------- tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 1 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 1 92.00 1 100.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 ; 100.00 tblVehicleTrips ST-TR 1.68 0.64 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.68 0.64 ........... ................... :............... ................i.__________________ ----------- ;.... tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1 1.68 0.64 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.68 0.64 tblVehicleTri s WD_TR 1.68 0.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 0.64 2.0 Emissions Summary 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 56 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG '- NOx CO 802 Fugitive "" Exhaust PM10 Fugitive . Exhaust PM2.5 .Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2, . "CH4 ' N20 'CO2e 'p PM10. PM10 Total PM25. PM2.5 Total _ ..Year ... .. "_ - ..i&nsNr - - MT/yr ' 2017 •t 1.5924 t 4.8102 t 2.8368 7.6800e- t 0.6628 t 0.1921 t 0.8549 t 0.2057 t 0.1788 t 0.3846 0.0000 715.4689 t 715.4689 0.1057 1 0.0000 : 718.1114 .: t t t i i 003 t r t t t t t r t i t Maximum 1.5924 4.8102 2.8368 7.6800e- 0.6620 0.1921 0.8549 0.2057 0.1788 0.3846 0.0000 715.4689 715.4689 0.1057 0.0000 718.1114 003 j 1 1 1 m rn I m 00 v to N Mitigated Construction w N ` ROG 1;: NOx CO:- -, ,502. - Fugitive,- Exhaust PM10 -;'Fugitive" Exhaust 1 PM25- ',Bio-0O2; NBi6-0O2 rTotal CO2 .CH4 'N20 CO2e y PM10 PM10 -Total PM2:5 PM2.5 f Totai ` .._ .. . -Year- -' - _. - __ .._ - .. _ tonsryr _ MT/yr 2017 •: 1.5924 t 4.8102 t 2.8368 i 7.6800e-003 i 0.6628 i 0.1921 i 0.8549 i 0.2057 i 0.178B t 0.3846 0.0000 715.4686 i 715.4686 t 0.1057 i 0.0000 : 718.1111 .: t t i : ' Maximum 1.5924 4.8102 2.8368 7.6800e- 0.6628 0.1921 0.8549 0.2057 0.1788 0.3346 0.0000 715.4686 715.4686 0.1057 0.0000 718.1111 003 ROG .- NOx CO- ' .` 'S02 ,Fugitive' ' 'PM10 - ,Fugitive ': Fxfiaust : PM25 BIo-CO2. N BIo-0O2"TolarCO2 ' CH4 N20 - . CO2e ' PM70 - [Exhaust . PM10 To PM25 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 1 T0.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 57 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Quarter ' "'Start Date: End Date Maximum. Unmitigated ROG+ NOX.(tonslquarter) 'Maximum MltlgatedROG+ NOX'(tons(quarter) 1 1-2-2017 4-1-2017 29191 2.9191 2 4-2-2017 7-1-2017 1.5535 1.5535 3 7-2-2017 9-30-2017 1.8582 1.8582 Highest 2.9191 2.9191 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational 'ROG -NOz C0- S02'" Fugitive '.Exhaust ,PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5, Blo- CO2;, NBio CO2 Total CO2 : CH4 N20 CO2e: - ' PM10 PM10' Total , PM7:5 - PM2i5' Total . Category ' - ; - ` -' - - - - tonslyr - - - - MT/yr Area •I 0.9837 I 8.0000 1 8.0600e- I 0.0000 1 1 3.0000e- 13.0000e- 1 11 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0154 0.0154 4.0000e-1 0.0000 0.0165 003 005 005 005 005 .0.0000 1005 I 005 _-.'•,._ 1 1 1 I I 1 I----_ I_-_---- . I Energy 0.0121 I 0.1098 I 0,0923 6.6000e- I 18.3500e- 18.3500e- i 8.3500e- 1 8.3500e- 1 0.0000 1 760.0269 1 760.0269 i 0.0287 7.6600e- 1763,0287 004 I I 003 1 003 I 1 003 1 003 . 1 I 1 003 ___________r_______r_______r_______r____-__r ------- r------- r ------- r------- __ _ _I r------- r------- r_______r__._. __ Mohile •I 0.3819 I 11.4558 I 2.6465 I 0.0325 I 0.9646 1 0.1108 1 1.0754 I 0.2722. i 0.1060 1 0.3782 1 0.0000 : 3,101.164 113,101.764 I 0.1146 1 0.0000 13,104.028 I 4 .i i _____ 1 I I I Waste I 1 I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 44.9584 1 0.0000 I 44.9584 I 2.6570 I 0.0000 1 111.3826 J I 1 I I 1 I 1 I _ _I_ _I I 1 I 1 ' Water •I I 1 1 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 17.2863 226.0545 1243.3408 1 1.7848 I 0.0439 1 301.0290 1 Total 1.3777 11.5657 2.7468 0.0331 0.9646 0.1192 1.0837 0.2722 0.1144 0.3866 62.2447 4,087.260 4,149.505 4.5851 0.0515 4,279.485 9 5 1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 58 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 35 Date: 5/1812017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational -`:AOG NOx'" CO - S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM70 Fugitive Exhaust I PM2.5 -. Bio-0O2 NBio-, CO2 Total CO2' -CH4 N20 ' _CO2e PM10 PM70 Total PM2.5 PM2.5' Total " Category' - . " tonstyr ', MTtyr- - - Area •I 0A837 1 8.0000e- I B.O600e- I 0.0000 I 1 3.000Oe- 1 3.000Oe- 1 13.000Oe- 1 3.000Oe- • 0.0000 1 0.0754 I 0.0154 1 4.0000e- 1 0.0000 r 0.0165 •� I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 005 I 003 I I r 005 1 005 I I 005 :i I 005 I I 1 1 0051S 1 r I I I I I 1 I I h - I I I Energy 0.0121 I 0.1098 I 0.0923 6.6000e- I 18.3500e- 1 8.3500e- I - 1 8.3500e- 1 8.3500e- r 0.0000 1 760.0269 1760.0269 I 0.0287 1 7.6600e- 1763.0287 003 1 004 I I 1 003 I 1 003 I 1 1 1 003 i i i i i 003 � .I I I I I I I 1 1 ___________•_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_--____._______________________r_______r_______r____-_ �------- Mohlle •r 0.3819 1 11.4558 1 2.6465 1 0.0325 1 0.9646 1 0.1108 I 1.0754 1 0.2722 1 0.1060 I 0.3782 r 0.0000 13,10Y.16413,101.1641 0.1146 I 0,0000 13,104.028 I r I I I I I I I 1 r I 1 1 � 4 a I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I •r 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 r I 1 I 1 Waste ' I I I 1 I 0.0000 I a0000 I 1 0.0000 :r 1 0.0000 r 44.9584 r 0.0000 1 44.9584 1 2.6570 1 0.0000 r 111.3826 1 r I I I I I I 1 1 r I I I a 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I ..._ •r I I _____J I _____ � Water 1 1 I 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 r 17.2863 1226.05451 243.34081 1.7848 I 0.0439 301.0290 aI I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 • I I I I I I I 1 I I I r i I I 1 1 Total 1.3777 11.5657 2,7468 0.0331 0.9646 0.1192 1.0837 0.2722 0.1144 0.3866 62.2447 4,007.260 4,149.505 4.5857 0.0515 4,279.485 9 5 1 1 1 7 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 59 m rn I m 00 v t0 N W lJl CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM Num Days-1 NumDays I Phase Description 1 -Demolition 'Demolition ;112/2017 i 1/2712017 ; 5; 20- ------------------------- 2 :Site Preparation Site Preparation ;1/28/2017 12/1012017 51 to- _-_--i ___---40F •-••-•-•-•-•--•••-.-•---- ;2 3 Grading ',Grading /1112017 t4l7/2017 5� •Building ------------------ 4 • Construction 'Building Construction ;4/8/2017 r7/28l2017 5i 80� ' -------------------------------'.-...--'-'---------" ---'-'---- _____� ----_' ' r-___-__ r________r________t_________________________ 5 -Paving 'Paving ; 7/29/2017 i8/25/2077 i 5� 20� --•--� ____.; F9/28/2017 F 6 :Architectural Coating Architectural Coating :8/26/2017 5F 24- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 11.86 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 11.86 Acres of Paving: 6.45 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 353,430; Non -Residential Outdoor: 125,418; Striped Parking Area: 17,004 (Architectural Coating — sgft) Off Road Equipment 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 60 m rn 1 m 00 .D to N w m CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.1 Page 9 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM Phase'Name Offroad Equipment Type. Amount - Usage. Hours ' Horse Power Load Factor Demolition ,Concrete/Industrial Saws i 1; 8.00i 811 0.73 _____________________________&__________________________ _______—_—�------_------ .I_____________ Demolition 'Excavators 3, 8.001 1581 0.38 ............................... -_--_••--•--__-_---_.__-_ __-_-__.._____________ F______________ Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2; 8.00: 2471 0.40 Site Preparation i Rubber Tired Dozers 1 3; 8.00i 2471 0.40 ....................................................... ------------- --------------------------F------------•- SitePreparation 'Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes i 4; B.00i 97: 0.37 ----------•-------------- _ i --------------------------------------F-------•---_.. Grading ',Excavators i 2; 8.00i 1581 0.38 ----------•-- -------------_•-------------- ------------- Grading Graders r-----.-.._._.. i 1; 8.00: 187- 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers i 1� 6.001 247� 0.40 .---------------------------- Grading '----------------------- = -- 'Scrapers - —=------------I--------------F 2; 8.001 3671 ---- ---------- 0.48 ... ....................... Grading ---- --------- i-•-••Tractors/Loaders- Backhoes ------------------ ----------------------F --........... 2; B.00i 97i __. 0.37 Building Construction &Cranes 1; 7.00i 2311 0.29 --------------------•� ________ ' r __89r__________ Building Construction 3; 8.00i 0.20 -------•-_ ••. - -- - - :Forklifts- ------------------ ------------------------------I-------------F-----------••- BuildingConstruction 'Generator Sets 1; B.00: 84r 0.74 .--.•.----..-.•_______________ -------------------------- +_.._.________.._____:------------ I_-__-_______ F......_.______ Building Construction Tractors/LoadersBackhoes 3; 7.001 97: 0.37 -------------------------------------------------------- --- —----- _.--- —:--------------------------- F-------------- Building Construction 4,Welders i 1; 8.001 46' 0.45 — ------------ :_ Paving Pavers i 2; 8.001 1301 0.42 ____________________________y__-_.___--••-.-.•-•••-_-__ _ Paving 'Paving Equipment 2; 8.00: 132F 0.36 ._av___________________________� ------------- ___.___._____ P 2� 0.38 _n9 _______-_---•--•------- ---- --------------------- _ --- -- Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 61 m rn I m 00 v to N W V CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/201711:40 AM - Ph'aselJarne-'" - Offroad�:Egwpmehf+'�Worker'Trip' Vendor Trip' Count 'Number Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip 'Vendor Trip ^ ;Hauling Trip" Length 'Length Length. ` WorkerVefiicte' Class Vendor' Vehicle Class - -Hauling Vehicle'ClasS Demolition j 61 15.00, 0.00' 2,346.00: 14.7016.90i 20.00;1-D_Mix ;HDT_Miz 'HHDT Site Preparation T 71 18.00i 0.00' 0.0014.70; 6.90l 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Miz HHDT ' 1 ------ ' I I • Grading } 81 20.001 0.00; 3,750.00: 14.70; 6.901 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT ------------ i-------- :--------------------------------- __________.______________-___________________F ------ _-._ Building Construction 91 218.001 85.00, 0.00; 14.70i 6.90! 20.00; LID Mix ;HDT_Miz HHDT ----------------F ------- -- -= - - - F------------------------------- t---------------------------------- I---------- Paving 1 61 15.00i 0.00: 0.00; 14.701 6.901 20.00; LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT -__.__._-- .......... -----_-' I I Architectural Coating 1' 44.00' 0.00' 0.00; 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix ,HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site 1-"': ROG"?"'-NOX CO-' D802'-[ Fugitive "'.•Exhaust', PM10 F.Fugitive ,;:Exhaust-' P102:5'`'Bio-0O2 NBio--0O2 Total'.0O2] ` CH4- ;' 'N20 1 "CO2e ; PM10 "7otal -PM2.5 "PM2.5 Total .. Category _. _ . ; tdnsryr _ _ _ - ,_ MTyr- Fugitive Dust •I I 1 I I 0.2538 I 0.0000 I 0.2538 1 0.0384 1 0.0000 1 0.0384 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 a I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I --- •I I I 1 I I I I 1 � _______ _____ - II 11 I ; I1 Road OII_-...___R.II 0.0410 0.4275 0.2301 3.9000e- I I 0.0219 I 0.02191 I 0.020M1 0.0204 0.0000 35.6005 1 35.6005 1 9.7300e- 0.0000 35:8438 1I II I1 004 003 1 •' ' Total 0.0410 0.4275 0.2301 3.9000e- 0.2538 0.0219 0.2758 0.0384 0.0204 0.0589 0.0000 35.6005 35.6005 9.7300e- 0.0000 35.8438 0041 1 i 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 62 M 01 I 00 00 '17 N 00 W CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site -FROG t '" -,NOx 'CO - ` 302 - Fugitive,', _Exhaust r-,PM10 Fugitive , _.Exhaust 1 PM2.5 � Bio-0O2 NBi0` CO2 :TotaICO2' ` CH4 N20� CO2e. �. 1' PM10 ' Total I i PM2.5 Total 1 _ . I .. .. • -Category - - .: '-' -' - togs/yr - `- 'MT/yr-. ..-' Hauling •1 9.7800e- 1 0.3685 1 0.0553 1 9.4000e- 1 0.0202 1 1.7900e- 1 0.0220 1 5.5500e- 1 7.7100e- 1 7.2500e- + 0.0000 1 90.2589 1 90.2569 1 5.3200e- 1 0.0000 � 90.3900 .1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 003 1 I 003 + , r 1 003 1 .1 I I I I I I 1 I + 1 Vendor 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.000D 1 0.0000 + 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 F_.___-..__. __ _i Worker •1 9.9000e- 1 8.6000e- 1 8.3800e- 1 20000e- 1 1.6400e- 1 1.000Oe- 1 1.6600e- 1 4.4000e- 1 1.0000e- 1 4.5000e- + 0.0000 r 1.5496 1 1.5496 1 6.000Oe- 1 0.0000 1 1.5512 1 1 1 ., 004 1 004 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 004 1 005 I 004 + 1 I 1 + 1 1 1 005 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 + 1 1 Total 0.0103 0.3694 0.0637 9.6000e- 0.0218 1.8000e- 0.0236 5.9900e- 1.7200e- 7.7000e- 0.0000 91.8065 91.8065 5.3000e- 0.0000 91.9412 004 003 003 003 1 1 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site - -"-'" ROG "`, ':_ NOx --'CO , S02 - ; Fugitive ,' -Exhaust' R1010 ` Fugitive. :Exhaust --PM2.5 -- Elio- CO2 NBio- CO2 'Total CO2] -CH4 N20 CO2e 1 �PM70I Total :': PM2.5 - ., P.M2.5 Total- .' ` Category ., :.. . -._. ` " _ . v _".- ... ... .. _. 'tonaNr' .' �.... .. ;_. _ _ - _ _ _.. _ .. , ".MT/yr' ,. _ . . .. Fugitive Dust •1 1 1 1 1 0.2538 1 0.0000 1 0.2538 1 0.0384 1 0.0000 1 0.0384 + 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 •1 •1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 + 1 I 1 I ..__.._......i_______r_____-_r_-_____r_______r_______r_______r_______r_-__-__r_______ 1 r 1 1 t 1 1 + r_______r_______r _---___ Olf-Roatl 0.0410 1 0.4275 1 0.2301 1 3.9000e- 1 1 0.0219 1 0.0219 1 1 0.0204 I 0.0204 + 0.0000 1 35.6005 1 35.6005 1 9.7300e- 1 0.0000 � 35.8438 .i i 1 i 004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 j + + 1 1 1 1 I I 003 1 .1 1 1 , Total 0.0410 0.4275 0.2301 3.9000e- 0.2538 0.0219 0.2758 0.0384 0.0204 0.0589 0.0000 35777T7 9.7300e- 0.0000 35.8438 11 004 1 1 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 63 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site '..ROC ?NOx ,'. : CO - ''.502 Fugitive'' "Exhaust ' , PM10 Fugitive -Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio CO2 Total',CO2 ; 'CH4. , N20' CO20 , ' • PM10 - Total. PM2.5 . ` PM2.5 Total'. -' Categery. ? - ,- - - tdnsYyr - - 'MT/yr Hauling :i 9.7800e- 0,3685 0.0553 i 9.4000e- i 0.0202 1.7900e- i 0.0220 i 5.5500e- i 1.7100e- I 7.2500e- 0.0000 90.2569 1 90.2569 5.3200e- 1. 0.0000 90.3900 ., 003 I I I 004 r I 003 I I 003 I 003 I 003 • I I 003 _._....__-_p_-_____r-_-----r_______r_______r_______r_______r__---_-r.-______r.-______ .I I I 1 I I I 1 I r------- r------- I.------- r__-____ Vendor 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 t I I I I I I I I :i • � I I I I I I I I I • I i i i i --.W-_ok- __.�•I • I I I _rI ______-_rI ------- rI ------- rI _____--r __ _r_______r ------- r_______�_______ - OW 9._e - 1- 111 908600e-8.38--e-00-e-111.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 1 0.0000 1.5496 1.5496 16.000Oe- I 0.0000 I 1.5512 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 005 004 005 I I :i I I I I I I I I t • I I Total 0.0108 0.3694 0.0637 9.6000e- 0.0218 1.8000e- 0.0236 5.9900e- 1.7200e- 7.7000e- 0.0000 91.8065 91.8065 5.3800e- 0.0000 91.9412 004 003 003 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site -ROG �NOx ' CO- � ' 502 Fugitive-,'r Exhaust "-PM10 fugitive Exhaust' - PM25'. NBio-0O2 NBio-CO2 !Total"CO2 - 'CH4 N20' ' 'CO2e ' i. •.. - - P070, �" PM10. "Total PM25'-' 'PM2.5.' - Total' .. - i Category....,.tons/yr' ...._ -. - ,. .,,.. ,.- - MT/yr •. Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.0966 I 0.0000 I 0.0966 I 0.0503 I 0.0000 I 0.0503 • 0.0000 r 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 .I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • • I I I I 1 I I I I _ _•_ t _I_ _I I I Off -Road •I 0.0248 I 0.2614 I 0.1173 11.9000e- I I 0.0144 I 0.0114 I I 0.0132 0.0132 • 0.0000 I 17.6672 I 17.6672 15.4100e- 1 0.0000 17.8025 •I I I I 004 I I I r I I I I I I I I • I • I I I I I 003 I I , .I I I I I I I I I • I I I I Total 0.0248 0.2614 0.1173 1.9000e- 0.0966 0.0144 0.1110 0.0503 0.0132 0.0636 0.0000 17.6672 17.6672 5.4100e- 0.0000 17.8025 004 1 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 64 M 1 00 OD 17 to N A O CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ' ROG NOx -'. CO - ' - ' Fu Rrve ". LExhaust t; Fugitive I Exhaust'. PM25' Bio CC2' NBio CO2 Total-0O2 CH4' N20 '- CO2e -- I - PM PM10 `PM10 ' Total " PM2;5 PM2.5 Total' . -502 1 I Category - - - - tons/yr - - - MT/yr - - Hauling V 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0,0000 a I I I 1 I 1 I I i 1 • I 1 I I 1 I 1 • 1 Vendor 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000' 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i i •1 I I I I I 1 1 1 • a 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I_ • 1 I 1 i I I I 1 Worker •1 6.0000e- 1 5.20o0e- 1 5.0300e- 1 1.000Oe- 1 9.9000e- 1 1.000Oe- 19.9000e- 1 2.6000e- 1 1.0000e- 1 2.7000e- • 0.0000 1 0.9298 I 0.9298 1 4.000Oe- 1 0.0000 I 0.9307 .I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 004 1 004 1 003 1 005 I 004 I 005 1 004 I 004 1 005 1 1 • 004 • i 005 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • , 1 1 i Total 6.0000e- 5.2000e- 5.0300e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.0000e- 2.7096e- 0.0000 0.9298 0.9298 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.9307 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site - `- - "ROG ,%NOx "' - CO ;SO2_ Fugitive i Exhaust ' 'PM10 Fugitive Exhaust. PM2f5 Bio-0O2 NBIo_- CO2 Total'CO. S ` CH4' N20- 1 . CO2e -' - PM10. PM10 " Total PM2.5 - PM2.5 Total ` - Category"'- toiistyr' .' -... - - -'MP/yr Fugitive Dust •1 1 I 1 1 0.0966 1 0.0000 I 0.0966 I 0.0503 1 0.0000 1 0.0503 • 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 .1 I 1 .1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I • • 1 1 1 1 1 � _______rI ------- r1 __0_--r1 -__-___r_______Iri ------- - .______r1i _______rii -_- _____rII ...O.Road .__•.1i .____ •7.8025 0._0.2614 0.1173 11:9000e- I 0. 0.0144 0.0132 0.0132 0.0000 17.6672 17.6672 5.4100e- I 004 • ; I 1 003 i i i 1 Total 0.0248 0.2614 0.1173 1.9000e- 0.0966 0.0144 0.1110 0.0503 0.0132 0.0636 0.0000 17.fi672 17.6672 5.4100e- 0.0000 17.8025 004 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 65 In rn I m 00 l0 N A CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG ' ^" NOx I "- CO. - S02 Fugitive. " :Exhaust PM10. = Fugifive �-Exhaust PM2.5 , B!o- CO2 tJ137 CO2, TotaI:CO2', .CH4 N20� :If 'CO2e _ PM10 • , PM10 =Total PM2.5 ; _PM2.5 Total' - Category '. '- " tonsryr - MT/yr ' Hauling 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0300 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 -------•T- I I r r I I I r 1 I I I Vendor I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 r 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 __.W_..k ------- rI -------1 ------- rI ------- rI _______1r_______rI _r1 - ______•____________r_______r_______r _0O__h ....... II or •1--_-_r 6.0000e- 5.2000e- 5.0300e- 1.0000e- 9.90007.0000e- 9.9000e- 1 27000e- A 0.0000 1 0.9298 I 0.9298 4.000Oe- 0.0000 0.9307e.... 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 I 004 1 I I I 005 1 r Total 6.0000e- 5.2000e- 5.0300e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 1.0000e- 9.90(30e- 2.6000e- 1.0000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.9298 0.9298 4.000Oe- 0.0000 0.9307 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site - ROG NOx CO _S02. - .Fugitive " Exhaust "' PM10 Fugilide Exhaust PM25 Rio-0O2 NRio-0O2 Total'CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e ' PM70' PM1Q "Nola) PM2.5. PM2.5 Total Ir Category - - 7ons/yr - - MT/yr ` Fugitive Dust •1 I I I I 0.1284 r 0.0000 r 0.1284 r 0.0671 I 0.0000 t 0.0671 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 i r I r I r I � I r r R•I 0.1150 1,3588 0.7757 7.240e- 0.0615 I 0.06OIFoa15 I I I 0.0565 0.0565 0.0000 115.1797 115.1197I 0.0353 0.0000 116.0015 . I 003 I 1 I r Total 0.1150 1.3688 0.7757 1.2400e- 0.1284 0.0615 0.1899 0.0671 0.0565 0.1237 0.0000 115.1197 115.1197 0.0353 0.0000 116.0015 11 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 66 M 01 I M 00 V to N A N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 35 Date: 5/1W21 17 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site " ROG ,',".NOx ""CCU S02 Fugitive Exhaust'• PM70-- Fugitive : .Exhaust' PM2.5 -Blo-0O2° NBio- CO2 Total:CO2f: .CH4 I - N20 CO2e ' . • �PM70 PM10 +, Total ' PM2:5' _ PM2.5 Total Category . ' - "' - - tons/yr _ MT/yr ' Hauling 0.0156 i 0.5890 0.0884 1.5000e- i 0.0323 i 2.8600e- i 0.0351 i 8.8600e- 2.7300e- 0.0116 0.0000 144.2725 i 144.2725 i 8.5100e- 1 0.0000 144.4853 003 , , 003 , , 003 , 003 I , i , , 003 , ___R______ 1 _____ I • r__-____r_-___-_r---____r_ r_______r_______r___--__r----___._______w_______•______-r--_____r_______ l r____-__�-______ vendor o.0000 l 0.0000 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 l 0.0000 r 0.0000 l 0.0000 l 0.0000 l 0.0000 , 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 l 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 a r ----------- R_______r------- r------- r_______r__________r�__-._._ i - Worker •' 2.6500e- 1 2.2900e- t 0.0224 t S.000Oe- t 4.3900e- r 3.000Oe- r 4.4200e- r 1.1600e- l 3.000Oe- , 0e 1.1900e- • 0.0000 ' 4.1323 t 4.1323 r 1.7000e- r 0.0000 4.1364 a 1 l r r r t t i „ 003 , 003 , , 005 , 003 , 005 , 003 , 003 , 005 003 . , t r 004 r , ' Total 0.0183 M5913 0.1108 1.5500e- 0.0367 2.6900e- 0.0396 0.0700 2.7600e- 0.0128 0.0000 148.4048 148.4048 8.6800e- 0.0000 748.6278 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site - "- ROG NOx - 'CO 1 S02 - Fugitive-' Exhaust PM10 -Fugitive Exhaust' PM2.5 -.Bio-0O2 NBto-0O2 Total.0O2 CH4 'N20 CO28 -' PM70 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total' - Category, _. _ -, .., . . ...... -tons/yr " - ....., - ,.. .... _ . ' MT/yr Fugitive Dust •' 1 l t 0.1284 0.0000 t 0.1284 t 0.0671 l 0.0000 , 0.0871 • 0.0000 ' 0.0000 t 0.0000 r 0.0000 l 0.0000 • 0.0000 a t t i t l t t 1 , . r r t t _______________r a l t r _ _._ _r ---- ___r_______r_------ r-------r----___r----- __r_-----_r---____I f _ i l t r_______r------- r---- ___; _.-_-_. Off -Road •' 0.7150 l 1.3588 t 0.7757 r 1.2400e- � l 0.0815 t 0.0615 � t 0.0565 0.0565 � 0.0000 ' 115.1195 l 115.1195 l 0.0353 � 0.0000 116.0014 a l i 1 a l l 1 003 l 1 i l t , r l l i i Total 0.1150 1.3588 0.7757 1.2400e- 0.1284 0.0615 0.1899 0.0671 0.0565 0.1237 0.0000 115.1195 115.1195 ox353 oxatio 116.0014 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 67 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site " '.'1 ROG. ;- •NOx " CO "-' -' S02 " , Fugitive"• r Exhaust - PM10 - Fugitive ' Exhaust -PM2:5.' alo-B02 NBIO CO2 Total CO21 i` CH4' -N20 CO2e • PM10, PM10 •Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total _ category, ` - - "tods/yr - - - - MT/yr - - Hauling 0.0156 0.5890 0.0884 1.5000e- 0.0323 2.8600e- a0351 8,860De- 2.7300e- 1 0.0116 00000 144.2725 144.2725 8.5100e- 1 0.0000 144.4853 003 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 003 1 • r 1 1 003 i r . 1 r Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 .1 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 • r 1 1 I I_______: ___ Worker 2.6500e- 1 22900e- 1 0.0224 1 5.000De- r 4.3900e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 a.4200e- 1 1.1600e- r 3.0000e- 1 1.1900e- 0.0000 � 4.7323 1 4.1323 r 1.7000e- 1 0.0000 r 4.1364 .r 1 1 I 1 1 I ,r 003 r 003 r 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 1 I 003 1 005 O03 . • I 1 1 1 004 r 1 , Total 0.0183 0.5913 0.1108 1.5500e- 0.0367 2.8900e- 0.0396 0.0100 2.7600e- 0.0128 0.0000 148.4048 148.4048 8.6800e- 0.0000 148.6218 003 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG ;,"„NOx" C 'CO' 802. Fugitive-1 i'Exhaust ' PM10 "I -Fugitive 'I -Exhaust I,- PM2.5 ' aio-0O2, NBio-CO2 TotaI:CO2. 4 CH4. '.N20 CO2e" _ �' ; ,- z •: ' _ _, PMi O'.,. ; PM10 -Total , :- PM25 „ PM2.5 , Total -' f Category 1 tons/yr __ _... .. _. _ MT/yr Off -Road .r 0.1246 r 1.0622 1 0.7273 1 1.0800e- 1 1 0.0715 1 0.0715 1 1 0.0672 1 0,0672 6 0.0000 1 96.1971 1 95.1971 1 0.0237 1 0.0000 r 96.7896 .1 1 r I 003 I 1 I 11 1 I I I I 1 • r 1 I 1 • 1 1 I 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t • 1 1 1 1 ' Total 0.1246 1.0622 0.7273 1.0800e- 0.0715 0.0715 0.0672 0.0672 0.0000 96.1971 96.1971 0,0237 0.0000 96.7896 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 68 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 411) and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ' 'ROG" i`"NOx - '_CO. S02• - Fuglhve;-. =Exhaust.;: PM10 '� Fugitive. ,7 heusV' -.PM2.5 ,BIo-0O2; NBio, CO2 'TotaI.CO2,' CH4 N20' i 'CO2e,' - _ PM70' - PM70 Total PM2.51 PM2.5 - Total- I '- Category '-: _ :.._w ._... _: _, -'- - --tons/yr -- - _ _ "_ �,- __ MT/yr Haulln9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 •I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I ------- � r_______r____-__r _______; ._.67._ Ventlor 1 0.0160 1 0.4520 1 0.1093 1 9.3000e- I 0.0214 1 3.7000e- 1 0.0251 1 6.1900e- 1 3.5400e- I 9.7200e- � 0.0000 1 884485 1 88.4485 1 6.7500e- I 0.0000 88.6173 I I 1 004 1 I 1 1 003 1 I I I I 003 1 003 � 003 . 1 . 1 1 1 I I 1 003 1 r , 1 I I 1 1 •.. __•Wore--.-••.-11 - -I1I III II1 ___-_-_•I --- 1 I 11I Worker 0.0578 0.0499 0.4871 1.0000e- 0.0956 7.0000e- 1 0.0963 1 0.0254 16.5000e- 0.0260 0.0000 90.0835 90.0835 3.6400e- 0.0000 90.1745 003 004 004 003 . 1 I Total 0.0738 0.5019 0.5964 1.9300e- 0.1171 4.4000e- 0.1214 0.0316 4.1900e- 0.0358 0.0000 178.5320 178.5320 0.0104 0.0000 178.7913 003 003 003 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site .ROG ` .=NO# CO , S02- Fugitive - Exhaust ;' .PM70 � Fugitive ' Exhaust PM2.5 :'Bio-0O2' Maio-0O2 Total CO21: 'CH4 + N20- PM10' •. PM10 ;Total i PM2.5,='PM2t5 Total' :CO2e Category- _ --. __ ,_ _ tonstyr - 'MT/yr ,. Off -Road •1 0.1246 I 1.0622 I 0.7273 1 1.0800e- 1 I 0.0715 I 0.0715 1 1 0.0672 1 0.0672 1 0.0000 1 96.1970 1 96.1970 1 0,0237 1 0.0000 1 96.7895 .1 1 I 1 003 1 I I Total 0.1246 1.0622 0.7273 1.0800e- 0.0715 0.0715 0.0672 0.0672 0.0000 96.1970 9G.1970 0.0237 0.0000 96.7895 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 69 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ",,- • "ROG.,' "'�NOx .; "'CO S02 , ; -_ -Fugitive ,. Exhaust P.M10 Fuglllve. Exhaust �, PM2.5 • t:Bio-COZ' NBio= CO2 2 •TotafCO2 '.CH4 N20 "CO2e -.. ,FM10' �• '.PM10= Total .' PM2i5-,.. ,PM2.5 Total _ - •-' Category - tons/yr - - MT/yr Hauling •'i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a r I l 1 I 1 r ; • r 1 1 � ___•-- •_ r 1 Vendor •r 0.0160 r 0.4520 1 0.1093 r 9.3000e- 0.0214 r 3.7000e- r 0.0251 r 6.1900e- 13.5Ze- r 9.7200e- • 0.0000 r 88.4485 r 88.4485 r 6.7500e- 1 0.0000 r 88.6173 r r r i r I r i r r r 004 I r 003 r r 003 i 003 I I 003 • r r r r r r 003 r r r ___p,_ r r r r i r r I • r______ r i_______ir--------------- Worker r_______ r_______r_______r______ � 0.0578 I 0.0499 I 0.4871 11.0000e- r 0.0956 r 7.000Oe- r 0.0963 0.0254 16.5000e- I I_ 0.0260 • 0.0000 � r_______r 90.0835 � 90.0835 � 3.6400e- 1 0.0000 r 90.1745 r r i 003 r I 004 I I i 004 I • • i I I r 003 r i i i i r 1 • r I r i ' Total 0.0738 0.5019 0.5964 1.9300e- 0.1171 4.4000e- 0.1214 0.0316 4.1900e- 0.0358 0.0000 178.5320 178.5320 0.0104 0.0000 178.7918 003 003 003 3.6 Paving - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site .. ,' ROG-" NOx- ' -CO. _ S02 Fugitive "Exhaust , PM10- ' Fugitive Exhaust' -- PM2.5 „1310-.0O2 NBIo- CO2 'Total 'CO2 -. 'CH4 " `--N20 ' ""CO2e' -Mill..:PM70: 'Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total .. - - - Category ` ., __ - ... ._. ..: _ _ ; _"=tons/yr _ - , _ .- _ -MT/yr. Off-7.ad 0.0195 I 0.2072 I 0.1503 r 2.3000e- I I 0.0116 r 0.0116 r 0.0107 I 0.0107 • 0.0000 r 21.1433 21.1433 r 6.4800e- I 0.0000 21.3052 •1 I r 1 004 r I � I I I I 1 I � j • • r I I r r r 003 1 ______p•ri_______rII -------rrr -_____________ _______ •• ______!ri _0_._000__rrr_- ______rII _r _______ri -______r-.__._. rr 6.4800e- rrI rIi 0.0000 r1 0.avin9 000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0000 .� 003 r I r r r I r r I • i r r r r r .r i i i i i I I i • i r r r ' Total 0.0259 0.2072 0.1503 2.3000e- 0.0116 0.0716 0.0107 0.0107 0.0000 21.1433 21.1433 6.4800e- 0.0000 27.3052 004 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 70 m rn I 00 _0 In N .P T CalEEMOd Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG' .� i. 1N_ Ox- ':CO.= S02 FugRive: - [.F�haust "'PMi0 Furjitive -Exhaust PM2:5. .BioCO2. N3io-:CO2. ;Total CO2' ' CH4 N20- CO2e ,' r .• - - PM10: PM10 Total' ' 'PM2.5 ,: P102.5 'Total Category , .. _ .- ".tons/yr _ , . -. - MTtyr _ Hauling i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 1 I 1 1 -.-•�_ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 . ----------------------- r------- r ------- r------- I_______'__-__ I r ------- r------- r___---- r------- Ventlor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 O.00DD 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 1 0.0000__1 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 t 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 I , I •I 1I I 1 1 I I I h Worker 9.9000e- 1 8.6000e- 1 8.3800e- 1 2.000Oe- 11.6400e- 1 1.0003e- 1 1.6600e- 1 4.4000e- 11.0000e- 1 4.5000e- • 0.0000 I 1,5496 i 1.5496 16.0000e- I 0.0000 1.5512 I I I 1 I I 1 I .I 004 1 004 I 003 I O05 I 003 1 005 t 003 1 004 I 005 1 004 • i � 005 i i , Total 9.9000e- 8.6000e- 8.3800e- 2.0000e- 1.6400e- 1.0000e- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.0000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.5496 1.5496 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.5512 004 004 003 035 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site - `ROG .NOx" '! . CO "' --'S02 Fo hive g .Exhaust - PM10 Fugitive Exhaust " _ PM2.5 ' -aio CO2 NBIo' CO2 Total CH4.' N20 : - -0O2e j _ PM70PM70 `-Total. �.•PM2:5 PM2:5 _ - .Category : '- _ - . - . _ - _ tons/yr.. -. _ , ....."_ .. MT/yr = - Olf-Road 0.0195 i 0.2072 i 0.1503 i 2.3000e- 0.0116 0.0116 0.0107 1 0.0107 A 0.0000 I 21.1432 1 21.1432 16.4800e- 1 0.0000 21.3052 C04 1 1 I I 1 1 1 i i i 003 I i -.-•m______ ______r______ 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 Paving I I i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 16.4800e- N 003 I � ' I Total 0.0259 0.2072 0.1503 2.3000e- 0.0116 0.0116 0.0107 0.0107 0.0000 21.1432 21.1432 6.4800e. 0.0000 21.3052 004 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 71 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site i• ROG _i,. NO, -"'CO ;` `-502'". Fugihve•'�"Exhausl". PM70 Fugitive -Exhaust• PM26'�'8io-0O2t NRio- CO2 yTota6CO21 CIi4. N20� 'CO2e •. - PM10 I -PM70 �Toial PM2:6 u . Total.- ,�M2.5 - _. ' Category _ : - _ "- _ - tons/yr - - . - - ., - ' MTlyr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 a I I I I r I r i I • i r a i i i i i r i r r------- r------- r------- r------- r ------- r___---- r_----- _r_------ ................. i i r_______i r_______r_______r....... Vendor •� 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 r 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 r 0.0000 i 0.0000 • 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 r 0.0000 � 0.000000 0 a i t i t i r i r 1 • i i i r r a t r 1 r i i i i t • .__ _._„______J r r r r i i r r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______ _______ ______ r _r_______r_______r___________ Worker •� 9.9000e- r 8.6000e- r 8.3800e- r 20000e- r 1.6400e- 1 1.000Oe- i 1.6600e- i 4.4000e- 1 t0000e- r 4.5000e- • 0.0000 r 1.5496 r 1.5496 1 6.000Oe- r 0.0000 r 1.5512 r r r r 1 i i i 004 r 004 r 003 r 005 r 003 1 005 i 003 i 004 005 I a • 004 • r i i 1 005 r r r i r i • r r i i Total 9.9000e- 8.6000e- 8.3800e- Matioe- 1.640Ge- 1.0000e- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.0000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.5496 1.5496 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.5512 11 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site - ;-ROG '- ". 'NOx' .'co- ., S02' :Fugitive '• Exhaust PM70 - Fugitive .'Exhaust ' P102.5 310-CO&'NRio-0O2-TotaICO2 ' CH4 "N20; r" CO2e - PM70. .. 'L PM10 , �ToteI • PM2.5 .? PM2.5 Total - .. ._..,:, _ .. Cate ory, ,__ -. tons/ r^ iMT Nchit. Coating •1 1.1491 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ,r t r r t t t t r t i • r t t 1 � ,r t t r i r t r • __...___.'_______rr_______r______________r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______ ------- r 1 1 1 _______ ------- ------- ------- ------- Off -Road 3.9900e- t 0.0262 t 0.0224 r 4.000Oe- r 1 2.0800e- t 2.OBOOe- � r 2.OBOOe- t v 2.0800e- • 0.0000 rrr r 3.0639 t 3.0639 t 3.2000e- r t 0.0000 r � 3.0720 a r .r 003 t i t r r 005 i r 1 t t 003 i t 003 t t i 003 I 003 • • r i i t i 004 r , Total 1.1531 0.0262 0.0224 4.0000e- 2.0800e- 2.0800e- 2.0000e- 2.0800e- 0.0000 3.0639 3.0639 3.2000a- 0.0000 3.0720 11 005 003 003 003 003 004 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 72 M 01 I M 00 /0 N CO 00 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site - "ROG ';, INN CO„"".'-:S02 Fugitive- „Exhaust. : PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2:5 �. CO2, Tota6.0O2, - �CH4 � N20' � 002e.: _ - ! PM10- 1 ;PM10 � Total PM2:5 PM2.5.. Total' ,Bio - ;NBio-0O2 - - Category'., ;.. ,' _. _.. __ ._. tons/yr - _ _ ., _ _ - MT/yr- " Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000. 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 _ .1 1 Vendor 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 J I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I i I •1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I � _I 1 1 � F -______._-_ _ Worker •1 3.5000e- 1 3.0200e- t 0.0295 16.000Oe- 1 5.7900e- 14.000Oe- 1 5.8300e- 11.5400e- 14.0000e- I 1.5800e- 0.0000 1 5.4546 1 5.4546 1 2.2000e- I 0.0000 1 5.4607 I I I I I I I 1 ;i 003 I 003 1 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 1 1 004 1 I 1 i1 1 Total 3.5000e- 3.0200e- 0.0295 6.0000e- 5.7900e- 4.0000e- 5.8300e- 1.5400e- 4.0000e- 1.5800e- 0.0000 5.4546 5.4546 2.2000e- 0.0000 5.4601 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site - - -ROG " ,-NOX' CO - 'S02 Fugitive -'Exhaust -PM10 - Fugitive'' -.Exhaust - PM2.5 .Bio- CO2 NBio-.0O2 (Total CO2. < CH4 N20- CO2e _. - _.__ _ _. PM70:-' PM10 '=Total PM2.5 PM2!5 Total ' , _, Category- , �.._.. .. • tans/.' _. Y Syr. 'MT_ -.. .. , Archit. Coating 1.1491 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i __-O_.__.__R_______r_______-_______r_______r___--_ _______I _______I __ _ .___._,_____--rI -_--___rI -_-_--_rI __--__-r1-__ Road 3.9900e- I 0.0262 I 0.0224 14.000Oe- r------_-1 12.OBOOe- 12.0800e- r I 128-_e-- I---_.__ 2.0800e- 0.0000 1 3.0639 I 3.0639 13.2000e- I 0.0000 1 3.0720 ;i 003 1 I 1 I 1 I 005 1 I 1 003 003 1 I I I I I I 003 � 003 � 1 I I 1 I I 004 I I Total 1.1531 0.0262 0.0224 4.0000e. 2.0800e- 2ABOOe- 2.0800e- 2.O800e- 0.0000 3.0639 3.0639 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.0720 005 003 003 003 003 004 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 73 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site .ROC NOx-'+--CO 'S02 Fugitive .1 ExhauSl PM10 ` fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bid-0O2', �NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 'CO2e ' PM10: 'PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total " Category - tons/yr - - - MT/Yr ' Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 a I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 - 1 1 I I , Vendor 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 1 1 1 1 Worker •1 3.5000e- 1 3.0200e- 1 0.0295 1 6.0000e- 1 5.7900e- 1 4.0000e- 1 5.8300e- 1 1.5400e- 1 4.000Oe- I 1.5800e- � 0.0000 1 5.4546 1 5.4546 1 2.2000e- 1 0.0000 1 5.4601 .1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 003 1 003 1 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 003 � 1 1 1 I 1 1 004 I 1 Total 3.5000e- 3.0200e- 0.0295 6.0000e- 5.7900e- 4.0000e- 5.8300e- 1.5400e- 4.0000e- 1.5800e- 0.0000 5.4546 5.4546 2.2000e- 0.0000 5.4601 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 74 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM ` ROG' ":NOk -CO - - ` S02 ' Fugitive PM101 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.S . Exhaust PMm I PM2.5 Total DO:'CO2 NBio-£02 'Total CO2 CH4 I 'N20 "' • CO2e Category tans/yr. - - MT/yt .. Mitigated •1 0.3819 1 11.4558 1 2.6465 1 0.0325 1 0.9646 1 0.1108 1 1.0754 1 0.2722 1 0.1060 1 0.3782 • 0.0000 13,101.1641I 3,101.1641 0.1146 1 0.0000 :3,104.028 n I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 I 1 1 1 1 4 •1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 I _ __________••._____ 1 1 1 -._._ ! _________________.- ,-----_-,- 1 .---- ! ,.__0754 .. ,__--_..4-..... .... .....� I I_ I_ 1 -___ ! ' Unmiligaletl 0.3819 � 11.4558 2.6465 0.0325 0.9646 0.1108 1.0754 0.2722 0.1060 0.3782 0.0000 �3,101.164 � 3,101.164 � 0.1146 0.0000 � 3,104.028 1 4 4.2 Trip Summary Information - -' Average Daily Rate ..._ - __.._ _... - - _ _ _ .. .Unmitigated { _' -_ -_Mitigated - `- - Land Use:`Weekday -Saturday 1. Sunday - "'Annual VMT - Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces, 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 ...................................................i------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 1 0.00 ; 0.00 ................................................... i___________t____._____- :--______________________p_ _________________________ Parking Lot 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 ............................................ ........----------------------- _............_...................................... Refri erated Warehouse -No Rail ' 22.62 i 22.62 22.62 _ _329,312 _ _ _ 329,312 `----`----- .-----------......_....... ..........- .......... ........................................ Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 1 128.18 i 128.78 128.18 1,866,269 1,866,289 Total 150.80 150.80 150.80 2,195,601 2,195,601 4.3 Trip Type Information ;Miles ' ' Trip% Trip Purpose: Land Use-,' - H-W orjC-W H-S or C-C 1 H O or"GNW ; H:W or C-W, H-S br GC1 'H-O oYC=NW Primary -'Diverted " ' ' P_ a_ss=by Other Asphalt Surfaces A 16.60 j 8.40 6.90 0.00.00 i 0.00 0 0 0 ........................-_- ___y_________,.-__._---.-_t_____ I ----------- �---------- �------- ......... Other Non -Asphalt Sudaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 i 0.00 0 0 0 ........................ :.-____-__--_________;__________:_________�-.___.._ �........._... _ _____ ----------------- Parking Lot 16.60 8.40_ 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 ..........•. •'-_ _ __-r_ __---_----___t_ - __ L-------. f-----------------------=----------=----------- Refrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 40.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 100.00 100 0 0 - - - -4- -' - "- --- ------ ----•-- Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 40.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0 0 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 75 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 4.4 Fleet Mix 11 Land!Use I LDA ' LDT1 ' _ LDT2. !I MDV I LHD17 1, LHD2 :1 MHD jvmb I OBUS [ UBUS I MCY "I,1SBUS I MH Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail• 0.000000• 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.1694001 0.000000: 0.2271001 0.6035UU1 O.0000001 0.000UUUI U.000UUU1 U.000UOU; 0.000UUU Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.1694001 0.0000001 0.2271001 0.6035001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.000000 Rail r I ' I I I 1 I 1 I I I -- -F T T r r- T-• - _4 Ofher Asphalt Surfaces 0.530593: 0.041525: 0.177860: 0.135679: 0.022741: 0,006161 r 0.0162081 0.0573651 0.0013021 0.001846;I 0.006534: 0.000835: 0.001351 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.530593: 0.041525: 0.177860: 0.135679: 0.022741: 0.0061611 0.016208: 0.0573651 0.0013021 0.001846: 0.006534: 0.000835: 0.001351 Parking Lot 0.530593• 0.041525: 0.177860- 0.135679- 0.022741: 0.006161• 0.016208• 0.057365• 0.001302• 0.0018460.006534: 0.000835: 0.001351 5.0 Energy Detail -I Historical Energy Use: N rn 00 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO - S02. Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive -:Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBlo-.0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e ` ' PM10 PM10 Toia4 PM2,5 PM2.5 - Total - .Category - - - tans/yr - - - '" MT/yr Electricity :1 i i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated I I __•.r______! -_....... Electricity •1 1 _____! _____! 1 I I _____! _____ I 0.0000 I 0.0000 Unmitigated •1 i i i i ._...lp_ I I I t I I NaturalGas •1 0.0121 1 0.1098 I 0.0923 1 6.6000e- I 18.3500e- 18.3500e- Mitigated •; i i 004 i i 003 j 003 _____....•I I I I I I Natt IGaa •• 0.0121 0.1098 0.0923 6.6000e- 8.3500e- 8.3500e- Unmitigated 004 003 003 I 0.0000 j 0.0000 0.0000 1 640.4584 1640.4584 1 0.0264 15.4700e- r 642.7497 003 1 _____ - r______ _F _____________________ �______ -______ �--------�------- I 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 640.4584 1 640.4584 1 0.0264 15.4700e- 642.7497 i i i i i 003 1 1 8.3500e- I 8.3500e- r 0.0000 1 119.5685 1119.5685 1 2_2900e- 1 2.1900e- 1 120.2790 1 003 I 003 i 1 1 i 003 1 CO3 1 • 8.3500e- 8.3500e- 0.0000 119.5685 • 119.5685 2.2900e- 2.1900e- 120.2790 003 003 003 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 76 m 1 00 00 IQ Ln CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NatumlGa -' ROG' ` NOz '-�CO -' s02:-I -Fugltive I Exhaust " 'PM10 Fugitive. Exhaust' PM2.5 Bio-0O2' NBlo-.0O2 Tdtal'.0O2 ' 'CH4 `I N20 CO2e' ,a'Use PM10 PMrD Total ' -PM2.5 PM2.5 Tofal Land Use kBTU/yr - - tonsyi - - 'MT/yr Other Asphalt 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000i 0.0000 1 0.0000 Surfaces ________r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r _______r_______r_______ r_______r_______r_______r_______ _ Other Non- I 0_•' 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 1 I 1 I I I I I . 1 I I 1 Asphalt Surfaces 1 1 :i 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 F_ �._______________r _______ I I Parkin- Lot I 0 •1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 , 0.0000 I u 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I u 1 t 1 1 I I I 1 1 • 1 I I I tl 1 1 1 I I I I 1L • ______1 I I I ' Refrigerated 11.83006e A' 9;8700e- 1 0.0897 1 0.0754 1 5.4000e- I 16.8200e- 16.8200e- 1 1 6.8200e- ' 6.8200e- 0.0000 97.6590 1 9A6590 11.8700e- 1 17900e- 1 98.2393 I 1� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r , Warehouse -No I +006 t1 003 1 1 r 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 1 1 003 1 003 1 Rail I 3' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' r 1 1 1 1 Unrelrigereletl 1 410568 A' 22100e- 1 0.0201 1 0.0169 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5300e- 1 1.5300e- 1 1 1.5300e- ' 1.5300e- i 0.0000 ' 21.9095 1 21.9095 1 4.2000e- 1 4.0000e- ' 22.0397 1 11 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 r Warehouse -No 1 &,1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 i 1 1 OD4 1 004 , Rail 1 t1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0121 0.1098 0.0923 6.6000e- 8.3500e- 8.350oe- 8.3500e- 8.3500a- 0.0000 119.5685 119.5685 2.2900e- 2.1900e- 120.2790 004 003 003 003 003i 1 003 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 77 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated - ROG- NOx �' GO -- S02 Fugitive' Exhaust PM10 'Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2.' NBio- CO2 TotaPOOZ. , CH4 N20 CO2e _NaturalGa sUse PM70 PM70 Total - PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 'Land Use kBTU/yr - - - tonstyr - MTtyr Other Asphalt I 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 Surfaces I u I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 • , I I 1 I u I I I 1 1 1 I 1 • I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 . I I I , ___.________________r_____-_r_______r_______r_______�____--_r____-__r-______r__-____ r______-r_______-_______r ------- Other Non- I a •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 t 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 , 0.0000 n I 1 1 1 1 1 1 • , I 1 1 1 I Asphalt Surfaces tl I I I 1 1 I I I • 1 I I I , I t __________n I I I I I I I I • , I I I , _______ r____-- _r_______r_______r_______r___-___r_______r _______r_______ _ ,._______r------- r_------ _ ____ I Parking Lot I 0 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 , 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I n I I I I I I 1 1 1 • , I 1 I I n I I I I I 1 1 I • 1 I I 1 1 •I ..__I I I I I 1 I 1 • 1 I I I , _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _______ ----- -i-------- . -- - _ - _ --__-__�___.__-,.__.___-- 83006er__-___ 98. Refrigerated 1 7.83006e 11 9.8700e- I 0.0897 I 0.0754 15.4000e- I 16.8200e- 16.8200e- I 16.8200e- 6.8200e- i 0.0000 97.6590 I 97.6590 11.8700e- 11.7900e- 1 98.2393 Warehouse -No I +006 r, 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 I I 003 I 003 , Rail t 1, I I I I I I I I I I I I Unrefrigerated 1 410568 4 2.2100e- 1 0.0201 1 0.0169 1 1.2000e- I 11.5300e- 11.5300e- I 11.6300e- 1.5300e- Y 0.0000 1 21.9095 I 21.9095 14.2000e- 14.0000e- M0397 1 /, I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Warehouse -No 1 I, 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 1 I I 004 I 004 1 Rail Total 0.0121 0.1098 0.0923 6.6000e- 8.3500e- 8.3500e-8.3500e­ 8.3500e- 0.0000 119.5685 179.5685 2.2900e- 2.1900e- Y20.2790 004 003 003 003 003 1 003 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 78 m M I m 00 tp N to CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity II.Total.0O2 CH4 N20 CO2e. Use f I Land Use kWhNr . ...-._ MTyr Other Asphalt 1 0 ' 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces r i i n � ______ ! _____ ! _ Other_Non- I 0___•' 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i ; i r Rr _ __F______ __r_______}. Parking Lot t 111584 •' 35.5531 i 1.4700e- 13.0000e- i 35.68035.6803 I •� j 003 j 004 Refrigerated ' 1.41584e 1. 451.1171 0.0186 3.8500e- ' 452.7310 Warehouse -No I 406 003 ; Unrefrigerated ' 482668 r' 153.7882 ' 6.3500e- ' 1.3100e- ' 154.3384 Warehouse -No i i; 003 003 Rail r' TO 640.4584 0.0264 5.4600e. 642.7497 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 79 1n rn 1 00 00 In N lfl r !1 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity, ?otaI,CO2t r CH4 -,I*- N20- CO2e Use I Land Use .kWh/yr " - - EMT/yr .I Other Asphalt 1 0 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 r Surfaces I u i r _ F------ .air ------- ______ r------- I....... her Non- 1 0 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces _ ._j.______ __r n � Packing Lot 1 711584 35.5531 1 1.4700e- i 3.000Oe- 35 6803 r 003 004 , Refrigerated I1.41584e +, 451.1171 0.0186 1 3.8500e- ' 452.7310 Warehouse -No i +006 i; 003 Unrefrigerated r 462668 153.7882 r 6.3500e- r 1.3100e- 154.3364 Warehouse -No I i; 003 I 003 Rail 4 Total 640.4534 0.0264 5.4600e- 642.7497 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 80 to rn 00 a v to Ln l r1 rn CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 29 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual ROG , i- -NOx i . `.CO: -- ? : S02' j Fugitive.- PMlo Exhaust i PM10 � ';PM10-- Total' Fugitive PM25 ,:Exhaust ', "PM2:5 ! PM2.5: ; Total ` � Blo-_CO2-; NBlo- CO2 iTotal'CO2 I' F - CH4 .N20 "' CO2e ' ' . .Category.^ JI ._ .. __ r'- -tons/yr ' _ _, - .. ., MT/yr - Mitigated 0.9837 1 8.0000e- 1 8.0600e- 1 0.0000 1 1 3.0000e- 1 3.0000e- I 1 3.000Oe- I 3.000Oe- 0.0000 r 0.0154 1 0.0154 1 4.000Oe- 1 0.0000 0.0165 .1 .1 1 1 1 1 005 1 003 1 I I 1 1 005 I 1 005 I I 1 1 005 1 005 i i i 005 j ' 1 I_ 1 1__ Unmitigated 0.9837 8.000Oe- 8.060De- 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.000Oe- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0154 0.0154 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.0165 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated 'ROG "•'NOx" ' '-'CO-,; = ' 'S02 , •Fugitive?-' "Fxhausf.'---PM10 Fugitive - -Exhaust ', PM25 .; 'Blo-0O2' N3io=CO2 'Total CO2. ;' LH4" -N20 " CO2e` PM10 PM10 '� Total PM2i5 - PM2:5 Total -. .. SubCategory... _" - -' - - , _ _. - ; Ions/yi _ - - . - .., - - MT/yr - - Architectural •1 0.1132 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0=00 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 Coating 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I __'R------- I 1 1 _____! 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I Consumer 0.8697 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 . 0.0000 •1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Products •1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 � � 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 ___________'R______ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ____ I_______ ' r Landscaping �� 7.B000e- � B.000Oe- � 8.O600e- 1 0.0000 � i 3.000Oe- � 3.000Oe- � � 3.000Oe- I 3.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0154 1 0.0154 4.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.0165 004 1 005 1 003 1 1 1 005 1 005 1 1 005 1 1 005 1 1 1 005 1 .i 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 ' ' Total 0.9837 8.0000e- 8.0600e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0754 0.0754 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.0165 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 81 M rn I 00 v l0 N 4 V CalEEMOd Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 30 of 35 Date:.5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated = qpG 'NOx "CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust 'PM25 ,B10-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4. N20 - CO2e ' PM70 PM70 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory - - - tonstyr - - MT/yr" Architectural •I 0.1132 1 1 I 1 1 0.0000 1 0.000o 1 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Coating I I I I 1 1 1 I I • I 1 1 I � ............ - 1 1 1 1 r 1 r 1 • r r 1 1 Consumer •I 0.8697 I I 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Products I I 1 I I 1 1 I :I ' 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 I 1 1 • • I I i r 1 I i r 1 •I I I I I 1 t I _____1 • �_______ I I 1 1 Landscaping •I 7.6000e- 1 B.000Oe- 1 8.O600e- 1 0.0000 1 13.000Oe- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.000Oe- 1 3.0000e- • 0.0000 I 0.0154 1 0.0154 14.0000©- 1 0.0000 I 0.0165 I I 1 1 I I I I 004 1 005 1 003 I 1 I 005 1 005 1 I 005 1 I 005 • I • I I I 1 1 005 1 1 •I 1 I I I 1 1 • I I I Total 0.9337 8.0000e- 8.0600e- 0.0000 3.0000a, 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0154 0.0154 4.0000e- 0.0000 0A165 005 003 1 1 005 005 11 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 82 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 31 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual ' Total CO2.. CH4 N20 -' CO2e Category, "' MT/yr ' Mitigated 243.3408 1.7848 0.0439 301.0290 I_ '0.0439 Unmitigated x 243.3408 1.7848 301.0290 K r l 7.2 Water by Land Use CO to Unmitigated N Ln 00 Indoor/Out Total CO2; CH4 N20 I ' CO2e _ .:door;Use, . Land Use. Mgal- MT/yr' ' Other Asphalt i 0/0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Surfaces 1 u 1 1 _ _ •r I I .F______��_______r_______r_______�_____._ Other Non- 1 0 / 0 •r 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces n I I Parking Lot 1 0/0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 n , u , 1 1 I Refrigerated 18.17238 / 1- 36.4980 1 0.2677 1 6.5800e- 1 45.1505 Warehouse -No 1 0 j� i 003 _.Rail I _Ll nr.efrlge2tetl 146.3147/ L 206.8428 1 1.5171 1 0.0373 1 255.8785.8785 Warehouse -No i 0 Rail Total 243.3408 1.7848 0.0439 301.0290 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 83 rn rn 1 m lb to M Ln t0 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 32 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out Total CO2' CH4 N20 CO2e door Use I Land Use - Mgal at MT/yr Other Asphalt t 010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 r Surfaces I u r r _ ______ _______ - r----------------------- Other Nan- r 0/0 -1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 r Asphalt Surfaces __...._____------ '______ - ______ I--______r___-__- Parking Lot 1 0/0 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 r Refrigeraled 1 8.17238 / 36.4980 ' 0.2677 ' 6.5800e- ' 45.1505 Warehouse -No 1 0 A. i i CO3 Rail Unrefrigerated 46.3147 / +' 206.8428 ' 1.5171 0.0373 ' 255.8785 Warehouse -No i 0 Rail Total 243.3408 1.7848 0.0439 301.0290 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 84 m rn I m 00 to N T O CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Category/Year Page 33 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 I N20. CO2e .. MT/yr.__. _ Mitigated 44.9584 i 2.6570 0.0000 111.3826 a i I __ Unmitigated •' 44.9584 2.6570 0.0000 111,3826 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated ' -Waste Total CO2' 'CH4 N20 -002e . 'Disposed_ , - I -Ldnd Use -' " tons ' - _ " MTtyr' " Other Asphalt 1 0 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces u Other Non- 1 0 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i u Parking Lot 1 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 n i 1 Refrigerated i 33.22 6 6.7434 0.3985 0.0000 167064 Warehouse -No 1 _ Rail ' �• ' ' Unrefrigerated 188.26 is 38.2151 2.2585 0.0000 ' 94.6762 Warehouse -No 1 t, Rail Total 44.9584 2.6570 0.0000 717.3826 Date: 5/18/201711:40 AM 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 85 m rn I m 00 !D N CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 34 of 35 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated . -Waste' Total CO2 I CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed, _ Land,Use .tons. - MT/yr Other Asphalt 1 0 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 , Surfaces , Other Non- i 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i ___-_._._._F______„______ - r------- r------- }------- Parking Lot 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 , Retdgerated 1 33.22 6.7434 1 0.3985 0.0000 ' 16.7064 Warehouse -No .... nil Unrefrigerated 1 166.26 l� 38.2151 2.2585 i 0.0000 94.67fi2 Warehouse -No r 4 , , , Rail r' Total 44.9584 2.6570 0.0000 111.3826 9.0 Operational Offroad Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM Equipment Type Number 'Hours/Day DaysNear Horse Power Load Factor F661 Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type - _ Number Hours/Day- 'Hour';/ -Year Horse Power Load Factor FuefType . Boilers Equipment Type - ':Number "Heat Input/Day - - Heat InputNear Boiler Rating Fuel.Type 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 86 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 35 of 35 Date: 5/18/2017 11:40 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual m User Defined Eouinment m 00 Equipment Type - Number. La 01 N 11.0 Vegetation 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 87 m rn I m 00 to N w w CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 28 Date: 5/18/201711:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land :uses '- �`>- "-' "Size ^•;"_',x 1 ' Metric" - 'Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area i"'Population" Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 35.34 A' 1000sgff i 0.81 35,343.00 0 .............................. ............................ .............................. ................. ............ Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 200.28 1000sgft t_____---------- i 4.60 200,277.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.10 + Acre 2.10 91,476.00 , 0 ....... .......................• Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 65.13 1000sgft I 1.50 65,130.00 0 ______________________________y -------------- _--------------- + Parking Lot 317.00 Space 2.85 126,800.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 88 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga- San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5118/2017 11:41 AM Project Characteristics - Land Use - Assumed 15 percent of warehouse land use would be refrigerated. Construction Phase - Included demolition phase to account for demolision activities on -site. Length of each construction phase consistent with IS's air quality model. Demolition - Used Project site measurements to obtain area square footage. Grading - Reflects input parameters used in IS's air quality model. Architectural Coating - Reflects input parameters reflected in IS's air quality model. Vehicle Trips - 0.64 Truck trip rate and 40 mile trip length for trips assocated with high cube warehouse as recommended by SCAQMD. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Area Coating - Fleet Mix - Truck Trips Only. Name Value lblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior 117,810.00 125,418.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays r 20.00 1 24.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 80.00 _--._ _______ _________-_----------.1.___________ ___-_______.; ._.--_-_. .-_---.-- iblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 40.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.06 1 0.60 ----------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ t__---_-_-_---.--.--.---_-_ tblFleetMix HHD 0.06 ; 0.60 tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 0.00 ............................. {,----------------------------- ------------------------------- ___._.. tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.00 ._.________tblFleetMix_______ -------------- LDTi____________}_____________0.04____________;------------ 0.00 _--__ _______ ______________________ __________ ___________ ___________ ______-___ ._._____-_ tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT2 1 0.18 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.17 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 89 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEM0d.2O16.3.1 Page 3 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/201711:41 AM iblFleetMix LHD7 0.02 0.17 tblFleetMix LHD2 6.1610e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 6.1610e-003 0.00 --- ---------------}-------_-_6.5340e-003-_-_-_----� -------------------------- tblFleetMix ; MY 0.00 ............................. ............................. ________ ________ ­----------------------- tblFleetMix MY 1. 6.5340e-003 0.00 ............................. y------------- ................ }_____________________________;_____________.____.__..... tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.00 ............................. :.............................. -------------------- _--------- .,................... ._____. tblFleetMix MDV 11 0.14 ; 0.00 ............................. ............................. }________ ________ ----.___. __-___-___ tblFleetMix MH 1 1.3510e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MH I 1.3510e-003 0.00 -- - -- tblFleetMix MHD 1 0.02 0.23 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 1 0.23 ----------------------------- ------------------------------ t-------------------------- iblFleetMix OBUS 1.3020e-003 � � 0.00 -------------- tblFleetMix______________________OBUS________.___}__________1.3020e-003_____________________ 0.00 •-•..........................;......._........_.._......... }----------------------------- --.------._-------.._.---- tblFleetMix SBUS 83500e-004 000 tblFleetMix SBUS I 8.3500e-004 1 0.00 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------ .........--________ iblFleetMix UBUS I 1.8460e-003 0.00 ._--______ _________ __ -_____ _-_--__--_- ------------------------------ _-_.-____ ..___-___. tblFleetMix UBUS 11 1.84609-003 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 1 100.00 11.86 _-_ --__--_} ----------------------------- tblGrading ; AcresOfGrading �--'-------------------- 0.00 .......................... :.................. tblGrading Materiallmported 1 0.00 1 30,000.00 .............................. .................---__..----i------------------------------'•---------•---------------' tblLandUse Buildin S acesquareFeet r 35,340.00 35,343.00 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- _________ _________ ______ ___-_-_, tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeel 11 200,280.00 200,277.00 ............................. _____ _---_-}_________ _________-I -------------------------- tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 35,340.00 ; 35,343.00 ............................. ..... .....}_________ ------------------------------ _-____ _____.-, tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 200,280.00 ; 200,277.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 1 2018 1 2017 iblVehicleTri s CNW_TL 6.90 40.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 40.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 90 m rn I 00 00 P N m m CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TIP 41.00 100.00 .____.__ ________ _________ _________ }___________ __—________-- .....____ __________ tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 ; 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 1 59.00 0.00 tblVehicleTri s DV_TP 5.00 0.00 1 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00 -----'_....---" _.P---------- -----------------------'--'-' -i------------------------------'----------------'--------- tblVehicleTri s PB_TP 1 3.00 0.00 ............................. ............................. }-----------------------------41------------...........__- tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 1 92.00 100.00 tblVehicleTriP s PR TP • 9200 ' 10000 - IblVehicleTri s ST_TR 1 1.68 0.64 IblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.-1.68 ; 0.64 ...................P..........{ ............................. 'r}._____________________________T..........-............... tblVehicleTri s SU_TR 1.68 0.64 ............................. ........ .-------------------- }___________ ___________¢ ..................... _. tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1 1.68 0.64 tblVehicleTri s WD—TR • 1.68 0.64 ----------------------------- _________ ____-_..__4________-___ _-_________T_________. .--..___-- tblVehideTri s WD_TR 1.68 0.64 2.0 Emissions Summary 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 91 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction 'ROG r-NOx -CO- '�S02-] Fugitive"7.'.Ezhausl PM10 - Fugitive 'F�chauat"" PM25 : Bio=CO2 NBio-'CO2 Total,CO2 ;. CH4- :N20' '" CO2e PM10 -Total PM2.5' :,PM2.5 - Total i _-_ .-Y,ea/••_'. ..,.a _ „_ „-; r,;, _.:. .: .; - ,','.lti/day. -.- _•., .-_ _ .. _ ". ," . - - ._ � Ib/day . _ - - 2017 •1 96.4152 1 96.6525 1 44.2372 1 0.1404 1 27.6025 1 3.2163 1 29.9747 1 10.1199 1 2.9642 I 12.7695 0.0000 114,628.42114,628.421 2.4069 1 0.0000 114,688.59 1 I 47 1 47 1 1 62 1 , Maximum 96.4152 96.6525 44.2372 0.1404 27.6025 3.2163 29.9747 10.1199 2.9642 12.7695 0.0000 14,628.42 14,628.42 2.4069 0.0000 14,638.59 47 47 1 1 62 m rn I 00 v to Mitigated Construction V ' �"�ROG '^,NOx ' " "'CO, 'S02 - ,'.Ezhaust. PM70' Fugitive. Fxhaust1 PM2.5, t "Blo-:CO2' NBio CO2 'ToteI;CO2 .*'.GH4 -� N20'. Y' CO2e'.' ' - -Fugiave' PM10 PM10'i Total. PM2i5: , PM2.5 Total - Year '* . , _. . . . -.. ' ".: .P ' ' - _ .... Ab/dag _ . - - .. - -. .. -lb/day 2017 •1 96.4152 1 96,6525 1 44.2372 1 0.1404 1 27.6025 1 3.2163 I 29.9747 1 10.1199 I 2.9642 I 12.7695 0.0000 114,628.42114,628.421 2.4069 1 0.0000 114,688.59 •1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 47 1 1 I 1 47 1 I 1 1 62 •I I I I 1 1 � I 1 I Maximum 96.4152 96.6525 44.2372 0.1404 27.6025 3.2163 29.9747 10.1199 2.9642 12.7695 0.0000 14,628.42 14,628.42 2.4069 0.0000 14,688.59 47 47 62 wx '['-CO­SO.2_ ;'Fugitive" •Exhaust ,PM70 -Fugltivef Exhaust f PM2.5 Blom CO2: iNBi6-0O2 Total CO2 ,CH4 "; "-N20., "CO2e'' ' _ - PM70 PM70 Total 'PM25` PM2.5 Total' Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 92 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 28 Date: 5/18/201711:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ' `ROG - ,=NC'__ -,CO" ",S02 - , = Fugitive '•E� haust - �' PM10' Fugitive-. ' Exhaust ' PM2.5 " ?Sio- CO2�, -NBio- CO2 .Total'CO2' - `CH4` : " N20- CO2e '. •d.. PM10 i PM10=Tolal IPM2:5 P,M2:5„ - Total , Category • : .. .. _ lb/day :-' ___,. _ Ib/daY. Area 5.3919 1 6.1 Woo' 1 0.0645 , 0.0000 I 1 2.3000e- , 2.3000e- , 1 2.3000e- I 2.3000e- 1 0.1357 , 0.1357 , 3.8000e- 1 , 0.1451 i 004 , 1 I , I 1 , a 004 ooa ooa ooa + I I , ooa 1 , I '1 Energy I 0.0662 1 0.6018 I 0.5055 1 3.6100e- I 1 0.0457 I 0.0457 I 0.0457 I 0.0457 + 1722.2009 1 722.2009 , 0.0138 1 0.0132 , 726.4926 003 Mobile •, 2.0883 1 60.1867 1 14.3812 , 0.1794 , 5.3873 , 0.6085 , 5.9958 , 1.5173 1 0.5821 , 2-0994 + 1 18,886.79 , 18,886.79 1 0.6803 1 , 18,903.80 + 1 I , + , 54 , 54 , , I 29 ' 1 Total 7.5464 60.7892 14.9513 0.1830 5.3873 0.6545 6.0418 1.5173 0.6281 2.1454 19,609.13 19,609.13 0.6945 0.0132 19,630.44 11 9 79 06 1 Mitigated Operational ' - :: ROG ,",NOx '=C0"" "' S02 - 'Fugitive'[ Exhaust" ".PM70 ` `Fugitive ' ,-Exhaust "'-"PM2:5 -- "Bio CO2 CO2 Total 'COT ` 'CH4 N20' --, 'CO2e - - - - PM70' PM70 Total ' 'PM25 . PM2.5 Total. _NBio- . 'Cat go ..•' _.. _.__ ... .._ .Ib/tlaY _ •. - : Ib/daY. .- Area 5.3919 , 6.1000e- I 0.0645 I 0.0000 1 , 2.3000e- , 2.3000e- I , 2.3000e- 23000e- , 0.1357 , 0.13577 , 3.8000e- , , 0.1451 1 I I 1 I 1 1 004 004 004 OD4 , , , 004 + 1 1 I 004 1 , .1 , I I 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 , Energy 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 1 1 0.0457 1 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 , 722.2009 722.2009 0.0138 0.0132 , 726.4926 003 i Mobile •, 20883 , 60.1867 , 14.3812 , 0.1794 I 5.3873 1 0.6085 , 5.9958 i 1.5173 1 0.5827 I 2.0994 + , 18,886.79 1 18,886.79 , 0.6803 , 1 16,903.60 •, 1 i , , 1 I 1 1 � I I + i 54 , 54 I I , 29 119,630.44 Total 7.5464 60.7892 14.9513 0.1830 5.3873 0.6545 6.0418 1.5173 0.6281 2.1454 19,609.13 19,609.13 0.6945 0.0132 19 19 06 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 93 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM - ROG ' NOx CO S02 ', Fugitive' Exhaust .:PM10 --Fugitive I Exhaust-' PM2.5 Bio. CO2, NBio-0O2 Total CO2 'CH4 'N20 CO2e " _ PM1e PM70 .Total PM2.5 PM2-5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 li.00 OAO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.o0 o.00 0.00 ii.oO 0.00 0.00 Reduction I I I I I 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Name 1 -Demolition ;______________________ 2 :Site Preparation ;_--- .. ................ 3 -Grading ------- ;------------------------ 4 :BuildingConstruction 5 Pavin ......................____.._.. 6 -Architectural Coating Phase Type Start.. Demolition ;1/212017 ......................__--_____._ (Site Preparation ;1/28/2017 i ----------------------- AGrading ;2/11/2017 --------------------------------- A Building Construction ;4/8/2017 r ____________________________-____ 1 ,Paving ;7/29/2017 _.................... .......... :Architectural Coating :8126/2017 Week i 1/27/2017 i 5i 20- i -----i i----- 2/10/2017 510� i4/7/2017------- r------- 5i------ nOf......................... i 7/28/2017 580: i 8/25/2017 i 520: t � i ;9/28/2017 5. 24- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 11.86 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 11.86 Acres of Paving: 6.45 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 353,430; Non -Residential Outdoor: 125,418; Striped Parking Area: 17,004 (Architectural Coating — sgft) Off Road Equipment 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 94 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Phase Name -11 ORroad Equipment;Type -Amount Usage Hours . - Horse Power Load Factor Demolition hConcrete/Industrial Saws 1; 8.00; 81 i 0.73 ------------=------------------ ----------- — --------------------------- -------------- Demolition ',Excavators 3; 8.00: 1581 0.38 ----------------------------A__._____._.._-_-__-_-_.._. ..__..________..___._..__:____________—_____________ -------------- Demolition Pubber Tired Dozers 1 2; 8.00l 2471 0.40 Site Preparation ARubber Tired Dozers 3: 8.001 247, 0.40 ____________________________�________.____._____-_--___ _--_-___.—_—_�____________�_____________ I ___________ Site Preparation 'Tractors/LoadersBackhoes i 4; 8.00; 97, 0.37 r ____________________________•-•----_--_-__-_•_ Grading Excavators ----- —,--------- _____________ i 2; B.00I 158i 0.38 -------------- _..................................... I ------------------------------------------- Grading 'Graders 1; 8.00: 187: 0.41 ............................} ------------------------ .--------------:-------------------------- f-------------- IGmding ,Rubber Tired Dozers i 1; B.00i 2471 0.40 �iGrading AScrapers t 2; 8.00i 367, 0.48 •---------------------------------•------- -- -------- -� --------•------------------r Grading !Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2' 8.00; 97i 0.37 ___ing___________tion ______________;----________-___-4-.__________--__ BuildConstruc -ACranes ____________—_____________ i 1, 7.00: 231: -------------- 0.29 _______________________________________________________{__—_ i ' -___________- Building Construction 'Forklifts i 3; 8.00: 89: 0.20 -----------------•--________-______________________-_-_ --- —--------- —---------------------------- F--____________ Building Construction Penerator Sets 1; 8.00: 84: 0.74 ............. _.......... ____ --------- _______----------- _____.________._._____:-------------------------- f--.-•-______-_ Building Construction 'Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes i 3; 7.00i 971 0.37 Building Construction Welders i 1; 8.00i 461 0.45 Paving Pavers i 2; 8.00: 130: 0.42 -----------------------1 _________________._:________-___ —_____________ -------------- Paving 1APaving Equipment 1 2; 8.001 132: 0.36 i............................ 'Paving I------------------------ 'Rollers __ ______________:____________—_____________ 2; 8.0o: 80� .............. 0.38 ._-•..•_•----.•_________________________________________4.________________ �___.._______t _.___________F____________._ Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1: 6.00: 78j 0.48 Trips and VMT 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 95 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Phase.Name Page 9 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Offroad EquipmentWorker Trip 'Vendor Tri Count , _ 'Number Number lrker Trip .Vendor Trip- HaulingTrip] 'Worker Vehicle Length - Length I Length I Class Date:5/18/2017 11:41 AM Demolition 1 6i 15.00, 0.00' 2,346.00: 14.70; 6.901 20.00: LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix 'HHDT A Site Preparation 71 18.00 0.00' 0.00: 14.70: 6.901 20.00: LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT Grading • 81 20.00i 0.00; 3,750.00: 14.70i 6.90i 20.00:LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT ' , Building Construction 91 218.001 85.00' 0.00: 14.701 6.901 20.00:LD_Mix ,HDT-Mix ,HHDT r-------------- +--- F' --------}---------- Paving 7 61 15.001 0.00' 0.00: 14.701I 6.901 20.00;LD_Mix ,HDT_Mix ,HHDT Architectural Coating ; 1• 44.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90: 20.00: LD-Mix 'HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site - ROG NOx, CO - S02 ;I `fugitive -Exhaust 'PM10 ' Fugitive Exhaust PM2:5 '.Bio:C NBio-0O2 TotalCO2. � CH4 N20 CO2e. " PM10 j ' _PM70 Total PM2.5' PM2.5 Total Category -' - - lb/day - lb/day - Fugitive Dust I I I I I 25.3817 1 0.0000 1 25.3817 1 3.8430 I 0.0000 1 3.8430 I I 0.0000 I I . 0.0000 __•------- Off -Road 4.1031 42,7476 11 0.0388 23.0122II 1I 1I 2.1935 1I 2.1935II 2.0425 2.0425 3,924.28313,924.2831 1.0730 1 :3,951.107 ••II II 1I rI � II 3 3 e , Total 4.7031 427475 23.0122 0.0388 25.3817 21935 27.5752 3.8430 2.0425 5.8855 3,924.283 3,924.283 Y.0730 3,951.707 3 3 0 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 96 M I m W -o to N V N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site "nROG"-, r'''NOx ''CO,"), "S02 .' Fugitive".''Exhaush-,� PM70 - '"Fugitive ".Exhaust .�'PM25 �Bio-, CO2 NBIo- CO2 Totaf:CO2. ,CH4 `- N20 - CO2e. ;- - PM10 PM70' Total PW " FM2.5 Total' ' Category Ib/tlay Hauling 0.9612 i 35.7966 1 5.2177 I 0.0949 Z0531 i 0.1776 i 2.2307 0.5629 0.1699 I 0.7328 10,053.59 i 10.053.59 t 0.5664 1 r 10,067.75 •r I I 1 I I I I I I I • I 53 I 53 I I i 46 ............. - I I I i I I I I • -_---- ------- ____-_------•--------------- I I I I I Vendor •I. a0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I ao0 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 • I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I • 0.0000 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I • • I I I I I i i i I r ...-.---..-•T- 1 I I I I I I I • r---------------------r_----__r_______r_ r_______r_______ - I r_______-__-_-__r____---r_______ Worker •I 0.1096 I 0.0773 I 0.9634 1 1.8800e- I 0.1677 11.2100e- I 0.1689 I 0.0445 11.1200e- I 0.0456 • 1186.2819 1186.2819 17.6000e- I r 186.4720 I I i I I I I I i I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . • I I I 1 I I I 003 1 I .i I I I I I I I • r I I I ' I Total 1.0708 35.8739 6.1811 0.0968 2.2207 0.1788 2.3995 0.6074 0.1710 0.7784 10,239.87 10,239.07 0.5740 10,2S4.22 73 73 1 66 Mitigated Construction On -Site ' ROG"' -: NOx 'CO 502. 'fugitive' .`.Exheust PM70 +' Fugitive ^Exhaust -PM2.5 "„Bio=CO2 Naio-0O2 TotaICO2: CH4 N20 ' '-0O2e - - - " •' PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5. PM2.5. , Total Category - .... - -` Ili/day' '- .. lb/day ._ Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 25.3817 I 0.0000 I 25,3817 i 3.8430 I 0,0000 I 3.8430 • I I 0.0000 I I 0.00o0 .I I I I II I I I I I II • •• I I i iI I11 III tIi III II1 III _ __ I I Of 4.1031 427475 23.0122 0.03 2.1935 2.1935 I 2.0425 2.0425 0.0000 3,924.283 3,924.283 1.0730II 3,951.107Roatl ..III I I 1 I I I 1 I • • I I I 3 3 I 0 a I 1 I I I I I • , I I I I I I • Total 4.1031 42.7475 23.0122 0.0388 25.3817 2.1935 27.5752 3.8430 2.0425 5.8855 0.0000 3,924.283 3,924,283 1.0730 3,951.107 3 3 0 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 97 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Mitigated Construction Off -Site IM id OW 3.3Sita Preparation`2D17 CaEEModVersion: CdEEYNod.2816.01 Page 12o/20 Date: 5U8/2O1711:41 AM 41hand Utica, Rancho Cucamonga ' San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ------------------- Mitigated Construction On -Site go Fugitive Dust CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 28 Date: 5/18/201711:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site _ "ROG j tNOx ':CO,.']' S02': "' Fugitive " "Exhaust". PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 N8io-0O2 TotaICO2 ,CH4 N20 ' CO2e '. .., , . " . PM70 PM70, Total PM2.5-' '. PM2.5 Total , Category ': - Ib/day" lb/day - Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.000O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I .............._____r ------- r------- r------- r------- r _______r -------�_---___r_____-_ ----------------------- r_______r _______r_______r _____.. vendor a.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 o.a000 1 0.0000 1 o.a000 1 0.0000 , o.00ao o.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.6090 .I , I I I I I I I , � • , , I I .I r I I I I r I I Worker •I 0,1315 1 0.0928 1 1.1561 1 2.2500e- 1 0.2012 1 1.4500e- 1 0.2027 1 0.0534 1 1.3400e- , 0.0547 1223.5383 1 223.5383 1 9.1200e- 1 r 223.7664 •r I I 1 I 1 1 I I , 1 , 003 1 1 003 , , , 003 1 � � 1 1 1 , , 003 1 1 .� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ' 1 1 1 Total 0.1315 0.0928 1.1561 2.2500e- 0.2012 1.4500e- 0.2027 0.0534 1 1.3400e- 0.0547 223.5383 223-5383 9.1200e- 223.7664 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmiticiated Construction On -Site " - - --ROG : ' Mx' '.CO :502 Fugitive "'Exhaust PM70 % Fugitive 'Exhaust PM2.5Bio=CO2 NBfo- CO2 Total CO2�' 'CH4 N20 CO2e ' ' PM10 PM70 'Total PM2.5 .,. PM25 Total ._ " ... ,. Category ,-. -.�__- ... Ib/daY'. .. -lb/day, -. .. Fugitive Dust •I 1 1 1 1 6.4213 1 0.0000 1 6.4213 1 3.3570 1 0.0000 , 3.3570 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 0.0000 .i 1 I I I 1 1 I I , • 1 I 1 I •I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I .___._K_______r _______r-_-__-_r------- r _______ _____ _--------------- r-_----- r--- ____r _______r _______r-______ Off -Road •I 5.7483 1 67.9396 1 38.7826 1 0.0620 1 � 3.0727 1 3.0727 1 1 2.8269 2.8269 t • 16,344.88616,344.8861 Y.9441 1 16,393.487 •1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 • r 1 1 3 I 3 I I I 9 Total 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 6.4213 3.0727 9.4940 3.3570 28269 6.1839 6,344.886 6,344.896 1.9441 6,393.487 3 3 9 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 100 M m I 00 G0 La Iv V Q1 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site -' '"ROG' " 1\10x ', "Co � : Fugitive , , � PM10 Fugitive ' � Ezhausl- P.M2.5 �. Bio-.CO2, NBio- CO2 ;Tot.1CO2I �- CH4 N20 ' �. CO2e - ['-'SOP PM70. f : PM70 .''Exhaust Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total' _ Category 4_.. _ _ . _ 'lb/day .. .lb/day Hauling 0.7682 28.6098 4.1701 0.0758 1.6409 i 0.1419 1.7828 0.4499 0.1358 i 0.5857 18,035.162 8,035.1621 0.4527 i I8.046.479 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 5 1 5 1 I 9 1 --.m---- I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I Ventlor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 � I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I I 0.0000 .I 1 I 1 I I ___•R ------- I I I I I I I 1 ! I I I I I Worker I 0.1461 I 0.1031 1 1.2845 1 2.5000e- I 0.2236 11.6100e- I 0.2252 I 0.0593 11.4900e- .I I 0.0608 1248.3759 1248.3759 1 0.0101 I 1248.6293 I I 1 I I 1 I I •I 1 I I 003 I I 003 1 I I 003 I I 1 I , Total 0.9143 28.7129 5.4547 0.0783 7.8644 0.1435 2.0080 0.5092 0.1373 0.6465 8,283.538 8,283.538 0.4628 8,295.108 4 4 4 Mitigated Construction On -Site -,, .ROG, . "='.NOx - CO: - `-S02; ; Fugitiw "= PM10 Fugitive < ".Exhaust PM2.5 Rio- NBio=CO2 Total CO2' i- .CH4 N20 CO2e " PM10 TotalPM2.5 - P.M2.5 Total .0O2 Category lb/day _ _ - ..- - 'Ib/day . Fugitive Dust •I I I I 1 6.4213 I 0.0000 I 6.4213 I 3.3570 I 0.0000 1 3.3570 I I 0.0000 I 1 I 0.0000 •I 1 1 1 •I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I 1 1 I •I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I Off -Road 5.7483 1 67.9396 1 38.7826 1 0.0620 1 1 3.0727 I 3.0727 I 1 2.8269 2.8269 � 0.0000 16,344.88616,344.8861 1.9441 1 1 t 1 16,393.487 1 a 1 1 1 •I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I � I 3 I 3 I , 1 8 1 ' Total 5.7483 38.7826 0.0620 6.4213 3.0727 9.4940 3.3570 2.0269 6.1839 0.0000 6,344.886 6,344.886 1.9441 6,393.4 77 1.67.9396 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 101 M rn I 00 -0 3 r IV V V CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Date: 5/18/201711:41 AM " "ROG NOx ---'CO .' " S02 "Fugitive �'-Exhaust. j PM1 F"Fugitive ' .Exhaust". ' BM2.5 Bida CO2 NBio• 302 Total CO2' " CH4 "N20 'G02e - PM10 IPM1p Total... PM2.5 . PM2.5 TotalcstajW. " , , _. ..-. _ b1day'.. .. _ . _ .. .'Iti/day . Hauling 0.7682 i 28.6098 i 4.1701 I 0.0758 i 1.6409 0.1419 i 1.7828 i 0.4499 1 0.1358 1 0.5857 8,035.162 i 8.035.162 i 0.4527 i 18,046.479 •I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 • I 5 1 5 1 I 1 .I r I I I r I I 1 • I I I I i Vendor :I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I 1 I I I I I 1 • .I I I I I I I I I 1 • I I _ • r I I I I I I I I I I I I I Worker I 0.1461 1 0.1031 I 1.2845 1 2.5000e. 1 0.2236 1 1.6100e- 1 0.2252 1 0.0593 1 1.4900e- 1 0.0608 • 1248.3759 1 248.3759 1 0.0101 1 1248.62.93 1 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 1 1 003 1 • I I 1 I .I 1 1 I 1 I I I • I I 1 1 Total 0.9143 28.7129 5.4547 0.0783 1.8644 0.1435 2.0080 0.5092 0.1373 0.6465 8,283.538 8,283.538 0.4628 8,295.108 a a 4 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site -" ROG' " "`NOx '" CO 'S02 ,' Fugitive `,„Exhaust PM10"' Fugitive ,-'Exhaust ' PM2.5 'Bio-COY NBIo-CO2 Total CO2: `CH4 ' :` N20 r 'CO20 ... - PM70 PM10 Total PM2.5- PM2.5 Total .. ._ ' Category. ... _ _.. _ .. lb/day . Iti/daY Off -Road •I 3.1149 1 26.5546 1 18.1825 1 0.0269 1 1 1.7879 1 1.7879 1 I 1.6791 1 1.6791 1 2.650 979 2.650.979 0.6531 I 12,667.307 n 1 1 I I I I 1 1 • I I I 7 I 7 1 I I I I 6 •1 I 1 I • I I I Total 3.1149 26.5546 18.1825 0.0269 1.7879 1.7879 1.6791 7.6797 2,650.979 2,650.979 0.6531 2,667.307 7 7 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 102 In rn I 00 w 'O t0 N V 00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ` 'ROG-' •.`NOx "-"'CO' ;.502" 'Fugitive „�Ezhaust" •'PM70-''CFogitive".Fxhaust "PM2.5 `' :Blo-0O2f NBIo-0O2 'TotaIICO2: CH4' N20 '".0O2e= PM10 PM70 - Total PM2.5..' PM2.5 Total - ,._.Category- "..,_ .Iti/daY. _. .- _, Ib/day .. Hauling O.00DO i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0D00 l 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I r 0.0000 i •I I I 1 1 I 1 I I t . I 1 1 i I n I I I I I 1 I I ................. I I I Vendor 0.3929 I 11.1017 I 2.5572 I 0.0235 I 0.5444 1 0.0919 1 0.6364 I 0.1568 I 0.0879 1 0.2447 12.476.15012,476.1501 0.1782 I 12,480.605 I I 1 5 I 5 1 1 1 � 6 I r I I I I I I . I ___ -------______ _______ __.0273 -------------------- I r I ------- r------- r------- r------- Worker •I 1.5928 I 1.1234 1 14.0011 I 0.0273 I 24367 I 0.0176 I 2.4543 I 0.6462 I 0.0162 t 0.6624 � 12,70Z29712,707.2971 0.1105 I 12,710.059 I 1 5 5 1 8 15,183.448 I I I , Total 1.9857 12.2250 16.5583 0.0508 2.9812 0.1095 3.0907 0.8030 0.1041 0.9071 5,183.448 0.2887 5,190.665 0 0 4 Mitigated Construction On -Site 'l'.ROG." ':-NOx f COS' �_802' :P'Fugitive ;PExhaust'-`PM10"_) Fugitive Exhaust ;,"PM2.5;" 'Bid-0O2'.NBio;. CO2 Total CO21" CH4 N20 , CO2e - - PM10 '-PM10. - _. Tble1 PM25 PM2.5 .. Totel Category - -. _ .. Iti/day - ` . - - Ib'/day Off -Road •I 3.1149 1 26.5546 I 18.1825 I 0.0269 I I 1.7879 1 1.7879 I I 1.6791 1 1.6791 0.0000 12.650.97910.6531 1 12,667.307 •I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 � . I2,650'9791 1 I 7 I 7 I 1 I 8 1 Total 3.1149 26.5546 18.1825 0.0269 1.7879 1.7879 1.6791 1.6791 0.0000 2,650.979 2,650.979 0.6531 2,667.307 7 7 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 103 m m I m 00 3 r N to to CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM FROG NOx^; .'CO___: S02 Fu hiveExhaust' g �' PM70- 77 Fu dive''Exhaust g' PM2.5 Bio-0O21 NBi,i-0O2 TotaLCO2,, " CH4 "'•'N20 "' CO26 'PM10 PM70 Total -' PM2.5' PM2.5 Total' .. _. " Category-- . ... . -. .. _ lb/day - lb/day Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 .i 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 • 1 1 1 • , I 1 I 1 i ______ •1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 • m_______ ______ 1_______e_______ 1 I I 1 1 Vendor •I 0.3929 1 11.1017 1 2.5572 1 0.0235 1 0.5444 1 0.0919 1 0.6364 1 0.1568 1 0.0879 1 0.2447 1 2,476.150 1 2,476.150 1 0.1782 I 1 2,466.605 .1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 • • 5 5 I I 1 � 6 ___•-______ •1 1 1 I I I I I I I - 1 1 I I I 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 I 1 Worker •1 1.5928 1 1.1234 1 14.0011 1 0.0273 1 2,4367 1 0.0176 1 2.4543 1 0.6462 I 0.0162 I 0.6624 • 12,707.29712,707.2971 0.1105 1 12,710.059 1 •1 I i 1 I 1 I 1 1 j • 1 5 I 5 I 1 i B •, ' Total 1.9857 12.2250 16.5583 0.0508 2.9812 0.1095 3.0907 0.803D 0.1041 0.9071 5,183.4 88 5,183.448 0.2887 5,190.665 0 0 4 3.6 Paving - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx "CO.' S02"; Fugitive Exhaust PM10 10 ; Fu itive Exhaust : PM25 'Total CO21 i. CH4 '; N20 -,'' CO2e; r -` ... PM10 '. RM10 PM2S ,PM2.5 , Total - -Category" ._ _, _ - - .- lb/day lb/day' _12,348.498 Off -Road •I 1,9449 1 20.7178 1 15.0320 1 0.0228 I 1 7.1592 1 t.1592 1 1 1.0665 1 1.0665 • 1 Q330.646 1 2,330.646 1 0.7141 1 .1 1 I 1 I I I 1 i • I 1 I 1 1 1 6 .1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 • 1 1 1 I ___ __________________ ,. Paving .I 0.6485 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 .I I I I I I I I I I i � • I I 1 I I I 1 I .I I I I I I I I I • I I I I , Total 2.5933 20.7178 75.0320 0.0228 7.1592 7,1592 7.0065 7.0065 2,330.646 2,330.646 0.7141 2,346.498 1 1 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 104 m 01 I m 03 -0 l0 3 00 00 O CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site " - FROG NOx `'co "_ ^ . - 302 Fugitive] ;;Exhaust: - PM70 ., Fugitive ''1Exhaust PM2.5 . " Blo-0O2' NBio- CO2 ;TotaI:CO2 CH4. N20' :--ICO2e -;' PIVI _ _..._ PM2.5 Total - - •- Category- ..: _ -. __ - - -Vday" _ - - -.. .; __ '.Ib7tlay - - Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 .1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 • 1 I I 1 ' ___•R_ I I I I I I I I • I I I Vendor •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 • � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 .1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 • I 1 I 1 i ___•R I I I I i I I I • ------- ------- ------- ------- _______F_ I I I ------- ------- Worker nr_-___-_r_______r_______rr_ rr � 0.1096 1 0.0773 I 0.9634 1 1.8800e- 1 0.1677 1 1.2100e- I 0.1689 I 0.0445 11.1200e- .1 t 0.0456 • r_______r � 186.2819 1186.2819 17.G000e- �r------- I . 186.4720 I I I t 1 I 1 I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 � • • I 1 I , 1 I 003 1 I .I I I I I I I I • I I I I ' Total 0.1096 MOM 0.9634 1.8800e- 0.1677 1.2100e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1200a- 0.0456 186.2819 186.2819 7.6000e- 186.4720 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ' 'ROG;j NOx t CO'. "': " 502 Fugitive Exhaust, PM10' 'Fugitive ?Exhaust' "PM2.5' Bio=?. NBio-.0O2 TotalOO2. CH4 'N20% CO2e PM 10 ._ Total PM2:5 PM2.5 `Total, -- ..Ib7tlay. - .Category..- -'- __., ...- .. ..^ - --Ib7day .: 7, . : - - - -. - - - Off -Road •1 1.9449 I 20.7178 I 15.0320 1 0.0228 1 1 1.1592 I 1.1592 I I 1,0665 1 1.0665 1 0.0000 12,330.64612,330.6461 0.7141 I 12,348.498 tl I I I I 1 I I I • 1 1 I 1 Paving •1 0.6485 I 1 1 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0,0000 1 0.0000 • 1 1 0.0000 I I 1 0.0000 •1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 • 1 I 1 1 •1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 • 1 1 1 1 .1 1 I I I I 1 • 1 I I I 1 Total 2.5933 20.7178 15.0320 0.0228 1.1592 1.1592 1.0665 1.0665 0.0000 2,330.646 2,330.646 0.7141 2,348.498 1 1 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 105 m CIl I m 00 l0 00 00 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site - ROG.. •' ; NOx• - .CO- - S02 Fu hive Exhaust PM10 'Fu hive Exhaush; PM25.„Bio-.0O2:NBio- CO2 Total CO2 ; CH4 1N20 - CO2e i - ..-Category - - - -PM10 : Exhaust ' Total - PM2:5 - ,PM2:5 - -Total . - -- -- I _.' , `- .. _lb/dayt _ b/tlay. Hauling 7i 00000 i 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 r 0.0000 i 1 + I I 1 I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0-0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 + 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I I I I I I r I i i i i r_____________r_______r_______c_______�____-__�._-_.._........,._______ I r Ir ___1r_______c___-- _- _ r 096 0.0773 0.9634 1.8800e- I 0.1677 1 1.2100e- 1 0.1689 0,0445 1.1200e- 0.0456 186.2819 186.2819 7.6000e- IiI 186.4720Worke 003 003 003 003 II I Total 0.1096 0.0773 0.9634 1.8800e- 0.1677 1.2100e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1200- 0.0456 86.2819 186.2819 7.6000e- 186.4720 0003 003 03 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ` "ROG ••-�NOx I -'.CO'%: S02' �y ; Fugitive" nExhaust' - ;" PM10 , • Fugitive-- Exhaust -'PM2.5 ' .B10-0O2..NBio- CO2 :TotaLCO2.' CH4- '" N20 i CO2e.' I, -r PM70 PM10, Total PM2:5 PM2.5'- . Total - _ - Category. _- .. _ _ - _ _ ._. - 'lb/day _ _ .. -- - Ib/tlay. Archit. Coating :i 95.7614 i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i r 0.0000 i i •1 I 1 I I I 1 I I r + I I 1 1 •I I I I I I I I I + I I I I I O0-Roatl •I 0.3323 I 2.1850 I 1.8681 129700e- I I 0.1733 I 0.1733 I I 0.1733 0.1733 + 1281.4481 1281.4481 r 0.0297 r 1282.1909 i i 003 I I 1 I I I + I I 1 I .I I I ' Total 96.0937 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003 1 1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 106 m O1 I 00 00 lII 3 N 00 N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG'-''--NO>_r" - CO - -, S02 FugOive " Exhaust PM70=•, .Fugitive 'Exhaust PM2.5 RiodCO2` NRio=CO2 TotafCO2'. CH4 -N20 G02e - - PM10. .' 'PM10 '• - `Total PM2;5 PM215 Total, Category " ' - , - 'lb/day- - -" - ib/day - Hauling •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 a0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i a i 1 i r 1 1 i 1 • r 1 1 i Ventlor •� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 � 0.0000 a i i i 1 1 i i i 1 • , 1 r 1 a i i i 1 1 i i 1 1 • , 1 i i i a i 1 i 1 1 1 i i • i Worker 0.3215 i 0.2267 i 2,8259 5.5000e- i 0.4918 3.5500e- 1 0.4954 1 0.1304 1 3.2700e- 1 0A337 • r 546.4270 i 546.4270 1 0.0223 i 546.9846 •� 1 1 1 i i i 003 003 003 1 i i i 1 i i •, •' i i i r i i i i 1 • r r 1 r 1 Total 0.3215 0.2267 2.8259 5.5000e- 0.4918 3.5500e- 0.4954 0.1304 3.2700e- 0.1337 546.4270 546.42.70 0.0223 546.9846 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ".ROG`a NOx •%':CO- �502%;'Fugitiv-e''•Exhaust PM10 '[Fugitive.; -PM2I5 Exhaust -PM2.5 Sic-0O2 NBid-0O2 -Total CO2 CH4 -- N20 CO2e,' ' '! "" = 1 - '' PM10y PM10 Total. PM2.5 Total -•- " Category - "- - - lb/day - - - ; Ib/day - Archit. Coating 95.7614 i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 r 0.0000 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i • i r •r 1 i r 1 i i 1 1 . --------------- � i i 1 • Oft-Roatl •1 0.3323 1 2.1850 1 1.8681 1 2.9700e- i i 0.1733 1 0.1733 1 1 0.1733 0.1733 1 • O.000D 1 281.4481 i 281.4481 1 0.0297 1 r 282.1909 a 1 1 1 003 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 • • i i 1 i i i 1 r 1 a r i r i i 1 i • ' i i 1 Total 96.0937 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e. 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.0000 2877771 0.0297 282.1909 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 107 m lT I 00 00 w W CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROO NOx-" CO - ;S02. Fugitive Exhaust', 'PM10. Fugitive", .Exhaust .PM2.5 Rio--002 NBio-0O2 Total CO2' .CH4 - N20 '" CO2e .PM70 PM10 I Total - PM2.5 PM2:5 Total - Category _.: .'_ - - - - -' - lb/day '-- -.. lb/day -- Hauling 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i ___•R_ I I I I I I I 1 . r_ -r_ _r _______r_______r_______r_ �-_-____r------- I I I I r-___root _______r 1 r_ Vendor r 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0,0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 1 I 1 ._.Wore____„------- ., 1 1 1 1 q______ 1 1 . _____ _-____ 1 1 1 1 Worker r 0.3215 1 0.2267 1 2.G259 1 5.5000e- 1 0.4918 1 3.5500e- 1 0.4954 1 0.1304 1 3.2700e- I 0.1337 � � 546.4270 1 546.4270 1 0.0223 1 1 546.9646 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 003 1 I 003 I I I 003 Total 0.3215 0.2267 2.8259 5.5000e- 0.4918 3.550070.4954 O.t304 3.2700e- 0.1337 546.4270 546.4270 0.0228 596.9846 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 108 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM " _.. ROG "'NOx CO S02 Fugitive " PM10 Fxhausl PM10 PM70 Total Fugitive' PM2i5. _.... ".Exhaust PM2.5 _. PM2.5 Total '9ior CO2: NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 � - N20 CO2e Category' " - lb/day i - - lb/day Mitigated 20883 1 60.1867 1 14.3812 1 0.1794 1 5.3873 0.6085 1 5.9958 1.5173 0.5821 1 2.0994 r 1 18,886.79 r 18,886.799 0.6803 1 . 18,903.80 1 1 r a 1 r 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 r 1 1 1 . 1 r 1 r 54 r 54 r 1 , 29 ..___;; ___ ' __ ;._.___J _ _______ ......______ __ Unmitigated •• 20883 fi0.i867 14.3812 0.1794 5.3873 0.6085 5.9958 1.5173 0.5821 20994 18,886.79 18,886.79 • 0.6803 • 78,903.80 54 54 29 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trio Rate - .Unmitigated '. .' Mitigated' Land Use -` - Weekday Saturday' -Sunday Annual VMT - Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces 1 0.00 1 0.00 _______-___1 0.00 __.__--_-__ .....................................�.__..________ Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces , 0.00 i 1 0.00 0.00 :__-___________________......_.._.__............_... ' ......................................... Parking Lot .--------- 0.- 5 i ______---__-__-__.___._ t 0.-- .................................................... 0.00 . • • • • • • • • • • • Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail - ____________i________ - 22.62 ---T t 22.62 _ __________ 1 22.62 __________________________ 329,312 __________________________ 329,312 ... .......... ..............--_--_______t___-______- „________----_--_-_....__:_ _ __________ Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail ; 128.18 i 128.18 128.18 1,866,289 1,866,289 Total 150.80 150.80 150.80 2,195,601 2,195,601 4.3 Trip Type Information - :Miles Trip % Trip Purpose Land Use _H-Wor GW H-S orGC -H-O.or C-NW` H-Wot C-W H-SbY C-C�, H-O or C-NW - Primary Diverted _ Pass -by Other Asphalt Surfaces 8.40 ; 6_90 0.00_- 1 0.00 i 0.00 0 0 0 ,.......................�- --16.60 - _ ,--_ _ i'--------- r ---------- _•---._----------------'------------'..__' Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 ....................... __________ _________ -------- ------- 1 r___________, ___.____--.-__ _. -_ ------ -_______, Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00-- 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 ,.......... .............._ ___:-_ ___;_______-__ - - - h__...___ �__._.___.........._.___.________._.__ _____ ________, Refrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 40.00 :_ 0.00 1 0.00 1 100.00 ; 10o 0 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No ; 16.60 8.40 40.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0 0 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 109 M rn 00 to 3 00 00 (rl CalEEMOd Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 4.4 Fleet Mix Page 23 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM " Land Use LDA -. -'LDT1 'j LDT2 I MDV LHDS 1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS JBUS MCY' SBUS MH ' Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail• 0.000000• 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.1694001 0.0000001 0.2271001 0.603500: 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.000000 __I-_-_____1_______1_______1______-1_-_-___1_______1_______-L---__-_-L_______l___--_-1_______4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ------------------ Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No 0.0000001 O.000OOO1 O.000OOO1 OA00000i 0.169400: 0.0000001 0.2271001 0.6035001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.000OOOi 0.000000 Rail P i - - -r -r- -r r^ r er As r r - r r- r --• Othhalt Surfaces 0.530593• 0.041525: 0.177860; 0.135679: 0.022741: 0.006161: 0.016208: 0.057365: 0.001302: 0.0018461 0.0065341 0.000835: 0.001351 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.530593• 0.041525: 0.177860: 0.1356791 0.022741: 0.0061611 0.0162081 0.057365: 0.001302: 0.0018461 0.0065341 0.000835: 0.001351 ....................... :......... 4-------- I. -------- I. ........ I......... I. -------- F-------- ........I._-._-_E-------- I. -------- I.-._._._4._...._ Parking Lot 0.530593: 0.041525: 0.177860: 0.135679: 0.022741: 0.006161: 0.016208: 0.057365: 0,001302: 0.001846: 0.006534• 0.000835� 0.001351 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO '.S02 Fugitive PM10. -''Exhaust PM10 "PM10 'Total Fugitive PM2:5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2;5 Total SIC- CO272 Total CO2 CH4 N20 - CO2e Category ' - lb/day '" - lb/day ` NaturalGas 0.0662 1 0.6018 1 0.5055 3.6100e- 1 i 0.0457 0.0457 1 1 0.0457 I 0.0457 • 722.2009 1 722.2009 1 0.0138 1 0.0132 . 726.4926 Mitigated a 1 1 .1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 I I r 1 1 1 r 1I 1 I i • 1 � 1 NaturalGas 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 • 722.2009 0.0138 0.0132 726.4926 Unmitigated 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 110 M rn M 00 to N 00 M CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa -ROG 'NOx "- CO S02 Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2, CH4 N20 CO2e - s Use _-' I [Fugitive] PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I -PM25 Total I Land Use kBTUtyr '. lb/day - lb/day Other Asphalt 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 Surfaces 1 :i I I I I 1 I I I 1 • 1 I I 1 n I I 1 I 1 I I I + 1 I 1 I , Other Non- 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0,0000 . 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces I P •� •1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I j • r I • , I 1 I I u I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 , _ • , , I 1 Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 . 0.0000 1 1 , n 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 • , I I I • 1 I 1 I � _ .. - _ _ . _ u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 ------- r_____L _ _ _ _ _ __- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1r___-r Refrigerated 1 5013.86 4 0.0541 1 0.4916 1 0.4129 , 2.9500e- , r 0.0374 , 0.0374 , 1 0.0374 0.0374 589.8664 1 589.8664 1 0.0113 1 0.0106 1 593.3717 1 Warehouse -No 1 L +, I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , 003 T 1 1 1 Rail - - - • _ - - - - - - F • - - - - - F- ---F-----F_--"---i'------t'------:-------{ - - • - • - -F---F--2.3345 -----E------t' - • Unrefrigerated 1 11 0.01-1 1124.84 +� 0.0121 1 0.1103 , 0.0926 , G.6000e- , r 8.3800e- , 8.3600e- 1 , 8.3800e- 0.1---F- 0.0926 0OOe- ' 8.3600e- + 132.3345 , 732.3345 1 2.5400e- 1 2.4300e- 1 133.1209 . Warehouse -No 1 +,+, 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 e , 1 003 1 003 , Rail 1 L , , , 1 r , 1 , Total 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.04S7 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0139 0.0732 726.4926 003 j j j j j j j j j j j j 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 111 M m I co 00 l0 co 00 V CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated ' Natural Go ROG NOx 'CO S02 Fugitive 6rhaust PM70 .Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bic-0O2. NBio-0O2 Total CO2, - OH4 'N20 CO2e ' s.Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2:5 PM2.5 Total ' Land Use kBTWyr-" - -.- - le/day - - -- 'today - - Other Asphalt I 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0,0000. 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 • , 1 1 1 Surfaces � .i I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 • , 1 I I •1 1 1 1 1 _____ I I I _ • I 1 1 1 Other Non- 1 0 ' 0.0000 1 0,0000 1 0.0000 1 0,0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces u 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I • 1 Parking Lot 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 1 0,0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 ' 0.0000 u 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 I 1 , Al 1 1 I 1 I r 1 I t • 1 1 I I , ___i ______1 I I I Refrigerated 15.01386 1, 0.0541 1 0.4916 1 0.4129 1 2.95000- 1 1 0.0374 1 0.0374 1 1 0.0374 ' 0.0374 1 589.8664 1 589.8664 1 0,0113 1 0.0108 593.3717 Warehouse -No A.i i i 1 r 1 1 1 } 1 1 1 1 I Al 003 I t, 1 1 Ral i _ _ _ _ _ - _ ' �' - '' _ 4E- ------F------I _-----t---- =-------i ....... k-------F-----1 E--0.1103 0.0926 8.38O---•I 8.38OOe- I 2.54O---E-------I I 1.12484 +' 0.0121 1 0:1103 1 0.0926 1 6.6000e- 1 1 8.3800e- 1 8.3800e- 1 1 8.3800e- 8.3800e- 1 132.3345 1 732.3345 1 2.5400e- 1 2.4300e- ' 133:1209 0.0121 I •, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 arehouse-N Warehouse -No I 6 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 � 1 1 003 1 003 1 Rail I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0139 0.0132 726.4926 11 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 112 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer '•` - '-ROG. ;NOx. "" 'CO -' S02 Fugitive "�`:Exhaust ..PM10 '' PMIO _ PM10 ` Total Fugitive. i^ PM 2.5 Exhaust , PM2;5 PM2.5 Total. Bio-0O2< - _ NBto- CO2 .. TotaI,CO2 CH4 N20 .; ,' "CO2e I - - - Category _ _�. _ _. _-_._.- _ -_ - lb/day -.. lb/day Mitigated • 5.3919 .I 1 6.1000e- I 0.0645 I 0.0000 1 1 2.3000e- 1 23000e- I 12.3000e- 1 23000e- • I 0.1357 1 0.1357 1 3.6000e- 1 . 0.1451 a I I 004 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 004 1 004 1 1 1 004 OOA • I I 1 ; I • I 1 1 004 Un-mitigated 5.3919 6.1000e- 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- • 2.3000e- 23000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 004 004 004 C04 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ,- - ROG', „ .NOx ,CO` ;j -:S02- . Fugitive [ ;.Exhaust. +,PM10 :,Fugitive "'Exhaust PM2.5 `Bio-.0O2 NBio CO2 Total CQ2 " " CH4 ''"N20 -0O2e ' - - PM10. PM70 Total ` �'PM2:5 ' PM2.5 Total Subcategory - ,. lb/day- - - -;Iti/day Architectural •I 0.6200 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • I 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 •I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 Coating .I I I t t I I t I j • • 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 � --•m_ I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 • I I 1 1 Consumer •I 4.7657 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 • I 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 I I Products •1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I t 1 • • I 1 I I I I 1 _.________ r_______ r_______r__ r______ -_______r_______,._______r _______-_______r_______ i1 i_______r_______,._______r_______ Landscaping 6.2200e- 6.1000e- 1 0.0645 1 0.0000 1 1 2.3000e- I 2.3000e- i i 2.3000e- 1 2.3000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 1 0.1451 •1 1 003 I 004 1 1 1 1 004 I 004 1 1 004 004 • 1 1 1 004 1 .1 •' • Total 5.3919 6.1000e- 0.0945 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 23000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 11 004 004 004 004 004 004 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 113 m rn I In 00 to 3 00 tb LO CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Date: 5/18/2017 11:41 AM ROG NOx CO $02 ,Fugitive " Exhaust PM10 Fugitive: Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-.0O2 NBIb- CO2 Total CO2. CH4' 77 N20. CO2e • PM70 ,. PM10 Total PM2.5' PM2.5 Total .Subcategory -, - ?'" - Ib/day' - , ' lb/day 0.6200 1I 00000 0.0000Architectural 0.00001 0.0000 Coating .I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I _lR_ I ---I Consumer •I 4.7657 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 ` I I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 Products I I I I I I I I I I I I ____ I_______r_______r______________r_______-_______r__ ...___------- ------- r--------------- �_.. Landscaping 6.2200e- 16.1000e- I 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 123000e- 1 12.3000e- I 2.3000e- 0.1357 I 0.7357 13.8000e- I 1 0.1451 003 I 004 I I I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 r I I I 004 I ' 1 Total 5.3919 6.1000e- 0.0645 o.woo 2.3o00e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 004 004 004 004 004 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type - ` . - - ,Number - Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load FactorFuel Type -j 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 114 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 28 Date: 5/18/201711:41 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Equipment Type - Number' ,Hours/Day HoursNear Horsepower Load Factpr Fuel Type, m Boilers rn m O Equipment Type I Number I Heat Input/Day "'� Heatl6put(Year I " Boiler Rating I: Fuel Type 00 V N User Defined Equipment l0 C) --Equipment Type ' - Number 11.0 Vegetation 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 115 CaIEEMOd Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land,'Uses` - .Size ". - Metric, - Lot Acreage "' Floor Surface Area =.: • 'Population.: Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 35.34 1000sgft i 0.81 i 35,343.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 200.28 i 1000sgft i 4.60 i 200,277.0D 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.10 Acre i 2.10 i 91,476.00 0 ______________________________ :_____..__._______________ _______________________----- Other Non-Asphali Surfaces 65.13 1000sgtt 1.50 1 65,130.00 0 ____ _:_ ________ __________ _________. __._____ _ __________ _______________t _ ____ _ ______ ___ _ __. ____�___ __ _ ____ _____ }_ ___ _ ._____9 Parkin Lot 317.00 Space 2.85 126,800.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 116 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEM0d.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM Project Characteristics - Land Use - Assumed 15 percent of warehouse land use would be refrigerated. Construction Phase - Included demolition phase to account for demolision activities on -site. Length of each construction phase consistent with IS's air quality model. Demolition - Used Project site measurements to obtain area square footage. Grading - Reflects input parameters used in IS's air quality model. Architectural Coating - Reflects input parameters reflected in IS's air quality model. Vehicle Trips - 0.64 Truck trip rate and 40 mile trip length for trips assocated with high cube warehouse as recommended by SCAQMD. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Area Coating - Fleet Mix - Truck Trips Only. Table,Name ` Column.Name. Default: Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior 117,810.00 ; 125,418.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1 20.00 24.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 ; 80.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1 30.00 40.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.06 0.60 t ­-­----­----------­ tblFleetMix HHD ............................. :.............................. tblFleetMix LDA ............................. :.............................. tblFleetMix LDA ............................. :. ..... ........................ tblFleetMix LDT1 .............................: .................._-------_ tblFleetMix LDT1 ............................. y------------ _________________ 0.06 0.60 ________________;__._______________________ 0.53 0.00 ________________-._-------------- ......... 0.53 0.00 ________________T......_____.............. _ 0.04 0.00 0.04 i 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT2 1 0.18 0.00 _____-____ -;,. ___..__ ------------------- ______ tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.17 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 117 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEM0d.2O16.3.1 Page 3 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 511812017 11:42 AM tblFleetMix LHDi 0.02 0.17 ............................. 4_..-.--------.--__--..._--..-} ----------------------------- .}------_._..___-----_._-..- tblFleetMix LHD2 I 6.1610e-003 0.00 ............................. .:............................. }_____________________________t_-_-__--..--_-__-_.-_-____ tblFleetMix LHD2 I 6.1610e-003 0.00 ____________________________________________________________ }_____________________________;________---.--_----_--____ tblFleetMix MY 6.5340e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MY • 6.5340e-003 ! 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.00 ----_--__-tblFleetMix --_- _ MH 1.3510e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 1.35100-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD v 0.02 0.23 .............................. ----------------------------- }_____________________________t_______________-_-_------- tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.23 tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3020e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 1. 1.3020e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 8.3500e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 11 8.3500e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 11 1.8460e-003 ; 0.00 .............................. ............................. }________ _______ -._-_.-----_--...__ tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8460e-003 ; 0.00 ............................. ............................. }__________ _________ --____-__ _______.- tblGrading AcresOfGrading 100.00 ; 11.86 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 11.86 tblGrading Materiallmported 0.00 ; 30,000.00 11 tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeel 35,340.00 35,343.00 tblLandUse Suildin S aces uareFeet . 200,280.00 ' 200,277.00 ........................... ..y--------------- .............. ------------------------------ -_._-----.-_.__.-__-_____- tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 35,340.00 ' 35,343.00 tblLandUse LandUseS uareFeet 200,280.00 200,277.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 ; 2017 tblVehicleTri s CNW_TL 6.90 40.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 40.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 118 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 100.00 ............................. .y............................ ..y,_____________________________4.___________-___-__-__•_--- tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 ; 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 1 0.00 lblVehicleTri s DV_TP 5.00 0.00 . ............................ ----------------------------- -1----"""---------------------------------•-------__•_--- lblVehicleTri s DV_TP 5.00 0.00 tblVehicleTri s PB-TP 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB-TP 1 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 1 92.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 1 92.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1 1.68 0.64 lblVehicleTri s ST_TR 1.68 0.64 tblVehicleTri s Su_TR r 1.68 0.64 ..................--•--._... ----------------------------- ------------------------------ 4---­-----­---------­ tblVehicleTrips Su_TR 1 1.68 ; 0.64 tblVehicleTri s WD_TR 1.68 ; 0.64 ............................. ......... ...................... ............. ;........_ ..__._____ tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 0.64 2.0 Emissions Summary 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 119 m rn 00 00 '17 tD Ln CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM - ROG. ' ' 'fJOx " COS ;502. Fugitive ;Exhaust:�71, M10 Fugitive 'EziiausfF " PM25 " ',Bia.0O2 1x1810-0O2 TotaI:CO2'. CH4' N20: -002e - •- - PM70.:',. PM70, 'Total PM2.5 , 'PM2i5 Total . - _, - , _. - . , .Year . " ,- _ __ .... 161day.., .- ib/day: 2017 •I 96.4142 1 96.9248 1 44.5850 1 0.1382 1 27.6025 1 3.2183 1 29.9772 I 10.1199 I 2.9661 1 12.7695 • 0.0000 114,404.11114,404.11 I 2.4417 1 0.0000 114,465.16 .I 1 .I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 • 1 • I I 1 I 83 1 83 1 I 1 15 .r 1 I I I I I I 1 • I I 1 1 , Maximum 96.4142 96.9248 44.5350 0.1382 27.6025 3.2183 29779 2.9661 117695 0.0000 14,404.11 14,404.11 2.4417 0.0000 14,465.16 1 83 83 1 15 1 Mitigated Construction ROG CO'PM10r, Ff FT. ' PMe2a5":; Bo CO2^ NBioCO2 TotaC0 i CO2e" PM2.5 PM 2.St ,CH4 ` I`NOx-y ` ,Total - -_2 -.. Year or- _. ._.._._ .. _.." :_ .,. __, ._ ..-Ib/day;._., _ _ _ _ ,_, - __ _ _ - - _ "lb/day 2017 •I 96.4142 I 96.9248 1 44.5850 1 0.1382 1 27.6025 1 3,2183. 1 29.9772 1 10.1199 I 2.9661 1 12.7695 • 0.0000 r 14,1104.11 1 14,404.11 1 2.4417 I 0.0000 114,465.16 •I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I � • , I 1 • I 83 I 83 I 1 1 r I 15 •, I I I I I 1 • I 1 ' , Maximum 96.4142 96.9248 40.5850 0.1382 27.6025 3.2183 29.9772 10.1199 2.9661 12.7695 0.0000 14,404.11 14,404.11 2.4417 0.0000 14,465.16 83 83 1 1 15 ROG %+ :-NOx 1 CO: `" _ 502 `.. 'Fugitive' "Exhaust" ' PM10 `.Fugitive' Exhaust, PM2:5 : !eio- CO2, NBIo-0O2. Tota1:CO2 ' CH4 „ N20' : ' 902e'` 'PM70 "PM70..TotaF PM2!5 PM2:5 Total. I Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 120 to rn n9 00 t0 N LD M CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Date: 5118/201711:42 AM ROG-', "'NOz =C0- •..SO2' Fu rtrve r,-Exhaust PM10 " Fu hive Exhaust'- PM2.5 BIo-.CO2' NBioo- CO2 Total;CO2� . CH4 ' ' N20- CO2e I PM10 '. PM10 Total PM2.5 - PM2:5 Total - . ,,..Category.Ib/day. - ,. ..". - 'lb/day - Area •I 5.3919 6.1000 1 0.0645 I 0.0000 I 12.3000e- 12.3000e- 1 12.3000e- I 23000e- 1 0.1357 I 0.1357 13.8000e- I 0.1457 1 1 1 1 1 I .I I 004 I I I I 004 I 004 I I 004 � 004 , 1 r I I I 004 � .I I I I I _____ I 1 I __....ry _..,r _______ ______ r 1 1 I I 1 ------- Energy •I 0.0662 I 0.6018 I 0.5055 13.6100e- 1 I 0.0457 I 0.0457 I I 0.0457 I 0.0457 1 1 722.2009 1722.2009 I 0.0138 I 0.0132 1 726.4926 003 I I I I I ' 1 r 1 I I I I .I I I I I I I I I 1 Mobile •I 2.1176 I 61.9279 I 14.8453 I 0.1775 I 5.3873 1 0.6107 I 5.9900 I 1.5173 I 0.5842 I 2.1014 r ry8,692.16118,692:161 0.7139 I 118,710.01 I I 96 I 96 1 I I I 79 179,436.65 Totat 7.5757 62.5304 15.4153 0.1811 5.3873 0.6566 6.0439 1.5173 0.6301 2.1474 17414.50 19,414'50 0.7282 0,0132 62 62 56 Mitigated Operational - -ROG- NOx = CO" 802 I`Fugltiva'-•-Fxhausl "PM10. -'Fugitive" Exhaust.''F _PM25 `Bi0-0O2 N8Io-'CO2 Total CO2' 'CH4 N20 CO2e:" ' - - - •- . • PM10 " PM70. Total PM2.5-PM2.5 Total ' Category �. _ _ _. - - . - .. .:Ib/day - _ ..... ._ - .. _." - -,. Ib/day Area •1 5.3918 1 6.1000e 1 0.0645 I 0,0000 I 123000e- 12.3000e- I 12.3000e- I 2.3000e- - 1 0.1357 I 0.1357 13.8000e- I 0.1451 a 1 1 I 1 I 1 I .1 1 004 t I I I 004 I 004 I I I 004 004 r 1 1 I , 1 I I 004 I I __9Y__.,'_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r .I I I I I I I I I _______r _______ r I I I I i r_______�_______r_______r_______ Ener •1 0.0662 I 0.6018 I 0.5055 1 3.6100e- I I 0.0457 I 0.0457 I I 0.0457 I 0.0457 722.2009 1722.2009 1 0.0138 I 0.0132 1 726.4926 i I I I 1 I 1 i r 1 I 1 1 1 i Mobile _.1 1 I I ______1 2.1176 61.9279 14.8453 0.1775 5.3873 0.6107 5.9980 1.5173 0.5642 .______v I 2.1014 ------- r------- 18,692.16 18,692.16 0.7139 1 18,710.01 ,1 I 1 I I 1 96 1 96 1 1 79 ' Total 7.5757 62.5304 15.4153 0.1811 5.3873 0.6566 6.0439 1.5173 0.6301 2.1474 19,414.50 19,414.50 0.727.7 19,436.65 62 62 56 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 121 m 00 I 00 -0 v t0 to to V CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5118/2017 11:42 AM ROG '" +NOx ' CO _ S02 Fugitive = PM70` fugitive" -Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-:CO2 'NBlo-0O2' Total CO2 CH4 N20 'CO2e ' - - PM70 _Exhaust PM70 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase. Name Phase Type Start Date End Date I,Num Days=LNum Daysl Phase. Description Number - - Week 1 :Demolition ,Demolition ;1/2/2017 it/27/2017 1 5i 20; • ---------------------- r ------- 2 ;Site Preparation ,Site Preparation r F 1/28/2017 t2/10/2017 , 5, 10� :_.. 7 r r 3 'Grading ,Grading ,2/71/2017 i4/7/2017 , 5, 40� r---2017 r--------, 4 Building Construction ,Building Construction 4/8l2017 i7l28/2017 , 5, 60� , _.. _.._• .._____________________t , , 5 Paving aPaving ;7/29l2017 18/25/2017 , 5, 20: _......•...............................................r_________-_-F-------_-.--F________F________F________-___........ 6 •Architectural Coating •Architectural Coating :8/26/2017 -9/28/2017 5• 24• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 11.86 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 11.86 Acres of Paving: 6.45 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 353,430; Non -Residential Outdoor: 125,418; Striped Parking Area: 17,004 (Architectural Coating — sgft) Off Road Equipment 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 122 m rn I m 00 to N 00 00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter -'Phase Name offroadEquipment Type Amount .Usage Flours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition ',Concrete/Industrial Saws I 1; 8.001 81, 0.73 ______________•----_-____' ' r Demolition ',Excavators 3; 8.00, 1581 0.38 ...._________________________ __________________________t__________�.___-1------•--___ I_____________f.............. Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers t 2, 8.001 2471 0.40 ...............................•----________•_•-_-j_--______________:•-••--_•_--_...___-_________F_____________- ._.___ SitePreparation ',Rubber Tired Dozers ( 3; 8.00: 2471 0.40 Site Preparation ',Tractors/Loadem/Backhoes ( 4: 8.00r 97� 0.37 Grading ____________________ ',Excavators ! 2; 8.00: 158,, ----------------------- . ____________ 0.38 Grading ',Graders i 1; 8.00i 187� 0.41 Grading ',Rubber Tired Dozers i 1; 8.00i 2471 0.40 •-•----------------•-•-•-•--• .......................... -------------'------------�-------------F•---•-•-••-•-- Grading ',Scrapers 2; 8.0Oi 367: 0.48 ...------------------•--..... ......................... .................. ------- --------- -------- Grading ',Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2; 8.00: 971 0.37 Building Construction ',Cranes 1 7.00: 2311 0.29 ........................................................ _ _____� ___.___ _________ �3; .-.--.-. Building Construction ',Forklifts 8.60i 89F 0.20 Building Construction ',Generator Sets 1 ; 8.00: 84: 0.74 Building Construction ',Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes i 3; 7.00: 97, 0.37 _ _ Building Construction ',Welders 8.00: 46, 0.45 ...____________________________________________________�_—_____--__,_ ' _-_•-____-_r --------------F_.._._________ Paving ',Pavers ( 2; 8.001 130, 0.42 .--.----.-•-•-•________________•--____-___________--_---. ----------------- ..... .-------- Paving ',Paving Equipment ;_______•--•-i__________-__F ( 2' 8.001 132( 0.36 '--------------------------------------------- -------- Paving ',Rollers i 2; 8.001 80, 0.38 .......... _________...... ____------------- ___________________________________________-_____________F-------------- Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1' 6.00' 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 123 m rn 00 v to fJ t0 to CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Phase Name Page 9 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Worker Trip I Vendor Trip Length Length Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM Worker Vehicle I Veni Veh icle hicle Demolition 1 6i 15.00i 0.00: 2,346.00: 14.70: 6.901 20.00: LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix 'HHDT Site Preparation r 71 18.00I 0.00' 0.00I 14.70, 6.90i 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT Grading } 81 20.00, 0.00: 3,750.00� 14.70� 6.90j 20,00:LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT ________________}-_-_____.!__________4__________-_________!________-_ T______________ I ..-__________-------_-______-__--_E_..._._.__ Building Construction � 9i 1 218.00, 85.00- 0.00: 14.70, 6.90t 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT ' __'_.'.'.---•---F--------------}_.------------------r--------- Paving r 61 t ------____T ---------- 15.001 0.00: 0.00: 14.70, 6.901 20.00:LD_Mix " '_'__---'---�...._..... ;HDT_Mix :HHDT ................p________-_....-.__-------- .._--­___--__ ____---___-....--.____•________-r---__________r__--...___}---------- Architectural Coating 1' 44.00' 0,00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site - I ROG - ..NOx -c0- "_G02 fugitive' -Exhaust "PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CORI, CH4 'N20_ CO2e PM70 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category - :lb/day - -lb/day Fugitive Dust •I I 1 1 1 25.3817 I 0.0000 1 25.3817 I 3.8430 I 0.0000 I 3.8430 • 1 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 a I I 1 1 1 I I 1 •1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 ______ _____ , • , • • I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I t 1 Ofl-Road 4.1031 I 427475 1 23.0122 I 0.0388 I 1 2.1935 I 21935 I 1 2.0425 1 2.0425 3,924.283 13,924.283 1 1.0730 I 1 3,951.107 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 .i , • 1 1 • 1 3 3 I 1 1 0 I I I I I I I 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I , • 1 1 ' 1 1 Total 4.1031 42.7475 23.0122 0.0388 25.3817 2.1935 27.5752 3.8430 2.0425 5.8855 3,924.283 3,924.283 1.0730 3,951.107 11 3 3 0 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 124 to (In 00 D to W O O CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Date: 5118/2017 11:42 AM ". ROG- .,NOx CO- -S02 Fugitive;'Exhaust-! PM1P -Fugitive ':Exhaust PM25�. Bio-0O2. .NBio-0O2 Total CO2'." CH4 NI -' CO2e PM10 Total' . PM2.5 � PM2.5 Total Category .. - _. " "b1day - : ' lb/day Hauling yI 1.0003 1 36.1302 1 5.9296 I 0.0925 I 2.0531 1 0.1801 I 2.2332 I 0.5629 1 0.1723 I 0.7352 • 1 9,804.645 1 9,804.B451. 0.6115 1 r 9.820.132 a I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I • 1 1 I 4 4 I r 6 .._..._.. a I I I I 1 I I I • •1 I I I I I I I I I • ............ r 1 1 ..e _______ 1 1 1 r 1 1 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.000D 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i .1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 • I 1 1 I I .I I I 1 ____ � 1 I I 1 • 1 1 I I Worker 0.1093 I 0.0815 I 0.7975 1 1.6800e- 1 0.1677 17.2100e- 1 0.1689 I 0.0445 11.1200e- I 0.0456 1 1167.7589 1 167.1589 1 6.7100e- I 1 167.3267 003 i i 003 i i i 003 i i i i 003 .I 1 I I • 1 I I I Total 1.1095 36.2118 6.7270 0.0942 2.2207 0.1813 2.4021 0.6074 0.1734 0.7808 9,9727. 004 9,972.004 0.6182 9,987'459 3 3 3 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG'; ';;NOx ' - 'CO. -S02- Fugitive Exhaust '-PM10. Fugitive-, "Exhaust PM2.5 -Bio-.0O2' NBio-'CO2 Total'CO2 CH4_' 1 - N20 _ CO2e '. :Total PM2.5 ' . PM25 Total - Category..- . ; : ._. .. .. _' i " -;Iti/dAY' ... .-- .. .. _ .. ,Ib/day Fugitive Dust •I 1 I I I 25.3817 I 0.0000 I 25.3617 I 3.8430 1 0.0000 I 3.8430 I 0.0000 I I r 0.0000 a 1 1 I I I 1 t 1 I • 1 I I I I •I 1 I I I I I 1 I _•_ r I I I r 00-Road •I 4.1031 I 42.7475 I 23.0122 1 0.0388 I 1 2.1935 1 2.1935 I I 2.0425 I 2.0425 • 0.0000 • 3,924.283 13,924.283 1.0730 • 3,951:107 a I I I 1 1 I 1 I • r I I Y 3 1 3 I 1 1 D I a I I 1 I I I t • 1 I I 1 • Total 4.1031 42.7475 23.0122 0.0388 25.3817 2.1935 27.5752 3.8430 2.0425 5.8855 0.0000 3,924.283 3,924.283 1.0730 3,951.107 3 3 0 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 125 rn C I n III 00 _V C:) -I, CaJEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated construction Off -Site RG Ox-- -�,�S02-,-�-rugitive�leExh�Ust"l,-PMIO"FugifivblExhaust F02.6-.� 'BioCO2;JNBio CO2 TotarCov CH4, Co"R [ :Total-,TTotal Cate b1daX _:lb1day,,, 7 ` Hauling 1.0003 1 36.1302 5.9296 0.0925 2.0531 i0.1801 2.2332 i0.5629 0.1723 0.7352 1 9,804.845 1 9,804.845 1 0.6115 i 19.820.132 4 1 4 1 I 6 ------------ ------- r ------- r ------- r ------- Ir --------------- r --------------------------------------- r ------- r ------- r ------- I, ------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r ------- r ------- r ------- r ------- r ------- r ------- r ------------------------------- r --------------- r ------- Worker 0.1093 I 0.0815 1 0.7975 1 1.68OOe- 1 0.1677 1 1.2100e- 1 0.1669 1 0.0445 I 1.1200e- I 0.0456 167.1589 167.1589 1 6.71000- 1 67.3267 003 003 003 003 1 Total 1.1095 36.2118 6.7270 0.0942 2.2207 0.1813 2.4021 0.6074-17 0.7808 9,972.004 9,972.0041 0.6182 9,987.459 3 3 3 1 1 1 3.3 Site Preparation- 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site 5ROG NCX_ 2 u,,I,,ve PAaqS1 PM10 'T Fugffi4e ' 'Exhaust']� FM2.5-7 :Blo:co2j, N�id_CO2 Total CO2j -1',,-N20 ­11`-0O2ep? I-PlAlb Total �PM i 71' 1 1 ate Cmry Wd 3Y r L Fugitive Oust 19,3240 I 0.0000 I 19.3240 1 10.0665 I 0.0000 1 10.0665 1 1 0.0000 I I 1 0.0000 ---- ------ ------- r --------------- r ------- r ------- r ------- r ------- r ------- r ------- ------ --------II I r ------- r ------- 'r CTfTRoad 4.9608 52.2754 23.4554 0.0380 2.8786 2.8786 2.6483 2.6483 1 3,894.950 13,894.950 1 1.1934 1 3,924.785 0 2 1 I Total 4,9608 52.2754 23.4554 0.0380 19.3240 2.8786 22.2026 10.0665 2.6483 12.7148 3,894.950 1.1934 3,994.788 1 13,394,950 1 0 0 1 2 1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 126 rrl rn 00 -0 Lo w O CaJEEMod Version: Ca]EEMod.2016.3.1 3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 12 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 1-,'-S02�?s '-'Fugitive ;Exhaust Pk410: -7, �-'P,102.5 8104CO2- ;qBlo- CO2 'Total 902' �'CI­14 N20_-�T''(302e ];'Exl�aOst'� PM2.5 ',,ToMl'-. t,. '�Categioryl- lb/payZ .... ..... -'Ibtd Hauling 0.0000 i0.0000 i0.0000 i0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i0.0000 i0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 3.0000 i r 0.0000 i0.0000 I. Ir Ir ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------------•........ ------- I ------- I -------- I -------l.------- ------- --- .... �an 0.0000 0.0( )JO 0.0 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o; 1 Ir 11 _______1.-______ I Ir ------- Ir ------- Ir ------- I ---------------_-- ------- ------- ------- r ------- r ---- ------- F­ ---- ------- j27 Orl;- - 1 200.5907 200.5907 8.0500e- 1 200.7 0 e; 0,1311 0.0979 0.9570 2.0200e- 0.2012 IA5001- 0.2027 0.0534 1.3400e 0.0547 003 003 003 003 A t I I 1 -1-977779 0.9570 2.0200e. 0.2012 1.4500e- 0.2027 0.0534 1.3400e- 0.0547 200.5907 200.5907 8.0500e 200.7920 003 003 003 L 1 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site -,ROG, 502 ,,,Jrruqltv( :�Xhaust' :Fugitive yeExhaust ' PM2.5 NBe-902�-ota_I CO.2� CH 4- IPMIO- [ Total pM2.5 ! PA2.5, Total ' ay -"Ibld_ay;category _7 -j Fugitive Dust 1 19.3240 I 0.0000 1 19.3240 1 10.0665 I 0.0000 1 10.0665 1 1 I 0.0000 I 1 I 0.0000 ------- Ir --------------- --------------- r7 ------ r ------ -------------- • ------- r ------- r ------- r ------- ...... Off -Road ------- ------- 4.9608 52.2754 23.4554 0.0380 r 2.8786 2.8786 2.6483 2.6483 • 0.0000 3,894.950 1 3,894.950 1 1.1934 1 3,924.785 0 0 2 I I Total 4.9608 52.2754 23.4554 0.0380 19.3240 2.8786 22.2026 10.0665 2.6483 12.7148 0.0000 '1'7947950 3,8947950 1.1934 0 0 0 0 2 1 13,924,781 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 127 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ,HOG I f'--NOx, - ' CO SOR, Fugitive PM10 Fugitive Exhaust ' PM2.5. ', BID-0O2. We, CO2 'Total CO2. CH4 N20 I PM10 [Exhaust '.PMlo Total, P102.5- ' ,PM2.5 Total - Category - - , - .. -' lb/day " - - - - - ,lb/day' '- Hauling 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 O.OD00 i 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 n I I I I I I I I i I + I I I I •i I I I I I I I 1 Vendor •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 + I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 r 0.0000 t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 a + I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 + I I 1 1 � •I I I I I 1 I t I + I I 1 1 --------------- •--------------- Worker 0.1311 I 0.0979 I 0.9570 2.0200e- 1 0.2012 1.4500e- 1 0.2027 1 0.0534 1 1.3400e- I 0.0547 + 1200.5907 1200:59D7 1 8.0500e- 1 120D.7920 I I I I I I I I 003 I 1 003 I 1 1 003 + I I 1 003 1 I I 1200.7920 Total 0.1311 0.0979 0.9570 2.0200e- 0.2012 1.4500e- 0.2027 0.0534 1.3400e- 0.0547 200.5907 200.5907 8.0500e- 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site - --" ROG ', NOx -CO _S02 Fugitive Exhaust' 'PM10"'Fugitive 'Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBlo-0O2 Total CO2, CH4 N20 ` 'CO2e PM10 ,. PM10 Total' PM2.5 . -, PM2.5 Total, - Category- - - -' ' - lb/day ' - - - - lb/day Fugitive Dust •I I I 1 1 6.4213 1 0.0000 1 6.4213 I 3.3570 I 0.0000 1 3.3570 + I I 0.0000 1 I I 0.0000 •I I I 1 I 1 a I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 • 1 + I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 a I _.-_-______R_______r _______r------- r------- r------- _____ OIf-Road •I 5.7483 1 67.9396 1 38.7826 1 0.0620 1 I 3.0727 1 3.0727 1 I 2.8269 I P-8269 + I I 6,344.886 6,344.8861 1.9441 1 16,393.487 .I 1 I I I I I 1 1 + I I I 1 ' 1 I I 1 I I 1 I + 1 1 I 1 , Total 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 6.4213 3.0727 9.4940 3.3570 2.8269 6.1839 6,344.686 6,344.886 1.9441 6,393.487 1 3 3 9 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 128 m 01 I m 00 -a to W O A CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM rNOx CO +' S02 1 Fugitive '.'Exhaust PM10 ":.-Fugitive Exhaust !. PM2.5 ;'Bic'. CO2, NBio-0O2 JotarCO2. [ :.CH4 �N20� . ,`-• CO2e `, I `- 'PM10 PM10 `Total ' PM2.5 PM2.5' '; Total Category _, __ - - - , .. Ib/day' - _. _. - lb/day - - - Hauling •1 0.7994 1 28.8765 1 4.7391 1 0.0740 1 1.6409 1 0.1440 1 1.7848 1 0.4499 I 0.1377 I 0.5876 1 1 7.836.353 1 7,836.353 3 0.4887 I - 7,848.571 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 I i 4 -___,._________________________-__n_____-________________-_____r__-_-_----____�_-__.-_ Vendor •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I .i i 1 i i i i 1 I 1 1 1 1 _____ - 1 Warkor 1 0.1457 1 0.1087 1 1.0633 1 2.2400e- 1 0.2236 1 1.6100e- I 0.2252. I 0.0593 1 1.4900e- I 0.0608 1 222.8786 1 222.8786 1 8.95ooe- 1 1 223.1022 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 003 I I 003 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 � , 1 1 003 1 1 1 , , Total 0.9451 28.9852 5.8024 0.0762 1.8644 0.1456 2.0100 0.5092 0.1392 0,6484 8,059.232 8,059.232 0.4977 8.071.673 0 0 7 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG- :-'NOx cOr"� (. S02- Fugitive ' Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust' 'PM2.5 Bio-CO2' NBio- CO2 Total .0O2, 'CH4 --N20 - `-CO2e - ,PM10 PM10 Total- PM2.5 PM25 Total - - - 'Category �:- -_ _ _ -...:_ -y. _ ... - to/day -..: __ ... - - ..Ib/daY .. Fugitive Dust i1. I 1 i I 6,4213 1 0.0000 1 6.4213 1 3.3570 1 0.0000 I 3.3570 1 1 I 0.0000 I I 1 0.0000 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I a I I I 1---- 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 Otf-Road •1 5.7483 1 67.9396 I 36.;826 1 0.0620 1 1 3.0727 1 3.0727 1 1 2.8269 2,8269 0.0000 1 16,344.88616,344.8861.9441 1 16,393,487 a 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 3 I 3 I 1 I 8 1 , Total 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 6.4213 3.0727 9.4940 3.3570 28269 6.1839 0.0000 6,344.886 6,344.886 1.9441 6,393.487 3 3 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 129 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site "" CO- 'S02.. Fugitive'; Exhaust -PM10 ;:".Fugitive. Exhaust `PMg:5 Blo-0O2'NBio=CO2_[Total CO2 CH4' -.N20' CO2e - I.-,NOX PM70. PM70 - 'Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category - "' -` " - -" Jb/day --Ib/day Hauling 0.7994 28.8765 1 4.7391 1 0.0740 1 1.6409 1 0.1440 1 1.7848 1 0.4499 1 0.1377 1 0.5876 • 17,836.35317,836.3531 0.4887 1 �7,848.571 .I I I 1 I 1 I I I .1 I I 1 I 1 I I I j • 1 t I • 1 4 1 4 I I 1 I 1 4 1 • r____--- r------- r------- r------- r------- r ------- r_______r _______ _ 1 1 r--------------- r 1 r --------------- Vendor 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ---:�- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • r 1 1 1 r Worker •1 0.1457 1 0.1087 1 1.0633 1 2.2400e- 1 0.2236 1 1.6100e- 1 0.2252 1 0.0593 1 1.4900e- 1 0.0608 6 � 2228786 i 222.8786 1 8.9500e- 1 r 223.1022 .r 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 . 003 1 1 003 1 1 1 003 i • 1 I 1 1 003 I 1 .1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 , Total 0.9451 28.9852 5.8024 0.0762 1.8644 0.1456 2.0100 0.5092 0.1392 0,6484 8,059.232 8,059.232 0.4977 8,071.673 0 0 1 7 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitioated Construction On -Site ROG j ".NOX -"CO- ; -5022 Fugitive :'Exhaust PM10 "'.Fugitive I "Exhaust PM2.5 "Bio=CO2;NBio-0O2 :Total,02 ," CH4 N2C,-• `CO2e ."Total ^ PM2:5' 'PM2,5 'Total. _ _ _ .. Category '. 1,` ;_ ; _ _. .. _. _ _ - lb/day - lb/day Off -Road •1 3.1149 1 26.5546 1 18.1825 1 0.0269 1 1 1.7879 1 1.7879 1 1 1.6791 1 1.6791 • 1 2,650.979 1 2.650.979 t 0.6531 1 : 2,667.307 •1 I •1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 • 1 I I • 1 7 I 7 I 1 1 6 .1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 Total 3.1149 26.5546 18.1825 0.0269 1.7879 1.7879 1.6791 1.6797 2,650.979 2,650.979 0.6531 2,667.307 7 7 1 1 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 130 m 01 I 00 00 W O 01 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM "` FROG ;-'NOz 'CO S02- Fugitive 'Exhaust PM70 ".Fugitive ". Exhaust-'PM25 Bio-'CO2- NBio-:CO2 TatarCO2! CH4 'N20 CO2e. PM10 PM10. Total PM2.5 _ PM2.5 Total Category - Ib/day Ib/day, Hauling 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 o.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0,0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 r 0.0000 i •I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I .__________m------- ------- _______-_______-_______r_______r _______r _______r_______ _ --------------- r------- r--------------- Vendor 0.4099 I 11.0744 I 2.8755 1 0.0227 1 0.5444 1 0.0931 1 0.6375 I 0.1568 1 0.0890 I 0.245E • 2,383.993 1 2,383.993 1 0.1950 1 12,368.867 4 4 I I i i i I 6 • I I I 1 I ___-_-___,__-__ Worker .I 1.5879 I 1.1851 1 11.5901 I 0.0244 I 2.4367 I 0.0176 I 2.4543 I 0.6462 1 0.0162 I 0.6624 .6624 • I 2,429.376 12,429.3761 0.0975 1 12,431.814 I I I I .I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 j • I 5 1 5 I I I 2 .I I • I 1 I Total 1.9978 12.2595 14.4656 0.0471 2.9812 0.1106 3.0918 0.8030 0.1052 0.9082 4,813.369 4,813.369 0.2925 4,820.681 9 9 8 Mitigated Construction On -Site - - "ROG 'CO .' S02' -'Fugitive Exhaust- PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-C7 io-0O2 Total CO2 , CH4 N20 ,CO2e - _""'NOx _ PM10: PM10 I Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Category lb/day - lb/day Olt -Road •I 3.1149 1 26.5546 I 18.1825 I 0.0269 I I 1.7879 I 1.7879 I I 1.6791 I 1.6791 • 0.0000 12,650.97912,650.9791 0.6531 • I I 12,667.307 .I I 1 I 1 I .I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 • I 7 1 7 1 1 I 6 .I I I 1 I I I I 1 • I I 1 I Total 3.1149 26.5546 18.1825 0.0269 1.7879 1.7879 1.6791 1.6791 0.0000 2,650.979 2,650.979 0.6531 2,667'307 7 7 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 131 In 00 m to W O V CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ' ROG . NOx 1 col: S02 Fugitive, � Exhaust . `PM10 Fugitive ' - Exhaust PM2.5 ' Bic-0O2: NBio- CO2 ;Tctal G02] ' �CH4. N20 CO2e -, 1 _ PM10 PM10i To PM2.5 PM2.5 Total, Category ; - .. lb/day -_ - _ lb/day - Hauling 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 '1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 .1 i •1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I . 1 1 I I Vendor •1 0.4099 1 11.0744 1 2.8755 1 0.0227 1 0.5444 1 0.0931 1 0.6375 1 0.1568 1 0.0890 I 0.2458 12,383.99312,383.9931 0.1950 1 12,388.867 .i I 1 4 4 6 •I ________R___r___r_______r_______r_______r_______ I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I _ . r_______ r------- r------- 1 1 1 1 1 r ------- r____-_-r_____-_r.____._ I I I I Worker 1.5879 1 1.1851 1 11.5901 1 0.0244 1 2.4367 1 0.0176 1 2.4543 r 0.6462 1 0.0162 1 0.6624 . :2,429.37612,429.3761 0.0975 1 12,431.814 1 5 1 1 5 1 � 2 1 1 i I 14,820.681 Total 1.9978 12.2595 14.4656 0.0471 2.9812 0.1106 3.0918 0.8030 0.1052 0.9082 4,813.369 4,813.369 0.2925 11 9 9 8 3.6 Paving - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ' -ROG NO> CO -"802' "" Fugitive Exhaust :' PMI0 '' Fugitive . Exhaust PM2.5 " "Bio-0O2' NBio- CO2:Total'CO2 ' CH4' N20 - CO2e PM70 " PM10 Total PM2.5--PM2:5 Total ., , Category". �:-. ',._ :_-.._ ,; 'lb/day. ., _ "Ib/day Off -Road •I 1.9449 1 20.7178 1 15.0320 1 0.0228 1 1 1.1592 1 1.1592 1 1 1.0665 I 1.0665 r 12,330.64612,330.6461 0.7141 1 I2.348.498 •I I I 1 I I I I I . I 1 1 I 6 1 1---__ 1_--__-I 1 I I . I 1 1 I __. _...9 -_.•m_ ------ _____ _____._�_.__.__�_______ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Pavin •1 0.6485 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 1 1 Total 2.5933 20.7178 15.0320 0.0228 1.1592 1.1592 1.0665 1.0665 2,330.646 2,330.846 0.7141 2,348.498 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 8 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 132 rn rn I m 00 f3 W O W CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site -ROG:-, •-NOx, CO S02 'Fugitive 'Exhaust PM10 Fugitive-* Exhaust_ PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 TotalCO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM70.. ' ;PM10 ..Total. PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total Category lb/day Ib1day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i ail000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I I 1 • 1 I I I 1 - - I I I I I I I 11 dr ••�•1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . 11 0.0000Ven 1 1 1 -.-__.m__-__-_ •1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 •1 __---- 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 a r�____-_r------- r------- r------- Worker •1 0.1093 1 0.0815 1 0.7975 1 1.6800e- 1 0.1677 1 1.2100e- 1 0.1689 1 0.0445 1 1.1200e- I 0.0456 1 1 167.1589 1 167.1589 1 6.7109e- 1 1 167.3267 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 1 1 003 � 1 1 • i 1 1 003 I 1 � Total 0.1093 0.0815 0.7975 1.6800e- 0.1677 1.2100e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1200e- 0.0456 167.1689 167.1589 6.7100e- 167.3267 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PMZ5 Bio-CM NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 - Total P142.5 PM2.5 Total ,Category `-' -Ib/day Ib/day: O71-Road •I 1.9449 1 20.7178 1 15.0320 1 0.0228 1 1 1.1592 1 1.1592 1 1 1.0665 I 1.0665 1 0.0000 1 2,330.646 1 2,330.646 1 0.7141 1 1 2,348.498 .1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 • I I 1 ___•R_ 1 _____ 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 Paving •� 0.6485 i i � i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 Total 2.5933 20.7178 15.0320 0.0220 1.1592 1.1592 1.0665 1.0665 0.0000 2,330.646 2,330.646 0.7747 2,348.498 1 1 a 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 133 M In I m 00 10 W O lD CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site I "ROG i'"'.NOx �, CO'. ---S02, Fugitiva i Exhaust . '9M110. yFugitive ' :Exhaust " PM2.5 • +Rio: COZ; NBio- CO2 !TotaI,CO2. ' CH4 N20. .. CO2e ' • -. ,: I -PM10- .: ;' PM10 Total '.PM2.5 P102.5 Total • f Category '- - b1day, 1b/day - Hauling 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 i I I I 1 _1 i I i Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 OA000 1 0.0000 1 a0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 I Wodcer •I 0.1093 I 0.0815 I 0.7975 1 1.6800e- 1 0.1677 1 1.2100e- 1 0.1689 1 0.0445 1 1.1200e- 1 0.0456 1 1167.1589 1 167.1589 1 6.7100e- 1 1167.3267 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 003 I I 003 1 I I 003 I I I 1 I 1 1 003 I I Total 0.1093 0.0815 0.7975 1.6800e- 0.1677 1.2100e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1200e- 0,0456 167.1589 167.1589 6.7100e- 167.3267 003 003 003 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG. "NOx " CO" S02. - Fugitive . Exhaust PM70 - ,Fugitive . Exhaust - PM2.5 B10-0O2; NBio-.CO2 Tota1CO2' CH4- .- N20 'CO20 PM10:, PM10 .Total PM2.5_ PM2Z Total _ _.. - . 'Category .- ..,. .. :. - _IIb/day - - .... . Ib/day.. _._. Archit. Coating 95.7614 t I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i I 0,0000 i ...Of.R.o_a.d _ _Ir_2_._1850 _r1 ------- r___---_r__-_-__r_____ ------- r1 _______Ir --- ___ r1 ------- rI _______rI _______ri ______. 0-._33_2_3_ 1.8681 2.9700e- 1 I 0.1733 1 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 281.4481 281.4461 0.0297 282.1909 .I 196.0937 I I I I I 003 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1281.4481 I ' Total 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003 1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 134 M rn I 00 00 lfl CI W O CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG `N0x -CO"' '". S02' Fugitive, :'.Exhaust 'PM10 "Fugitive ".Exhaust PM25' Bio-0O2r NBio- CO2 'Total CO2 CH4' - -,;N20 "; CO2e. -. .., ,* PM70 PM10 Total .PM2:5 P102.5, ' Total .1, Category - lb/day - Ib/day Hauling 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i r 0.0000 i r----- __r_______r_______r------- r ______________r _______�._ x------- r--- ____r vendor a 1 0.0000 o.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0900 1 0.0090 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 , o.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I I I I 1 1 I Worker 1 0.3205 1 0.2392 1 2.3393 1 4.9300e- I 0.4918 1 3.5500e- I 0.4954 I 0.1304 1 3.2700e- I 0.1337 • 490.3329 1 490.3329 1 0.0197 I • 490.8249 1 1 1 1 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 1 1 003 I I I 1 i1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 ' 1 Total 0.3205 0.2392 2.3393 4.9300e- 0.4918 3.5500e- 0.4954 0.1304 3.2700e- 0.1337 490.3329 490.3329 0.0197 490.8249 003 003 003 1 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site -ROG'' '-NOz "GO SO2, ,Fugitive Exhaust PM70 ';Fugi[ive- Exhaust "PM2.5 Blo-. CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2'`'CH4" N20 CO2e PMi O, PM10 Total PM25 - PM2.5 Total = - Category._,_ - .. ..... .. _ - - IIi/pay ." . _ ., _lb/day Archil. Coating 2 95.7614 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 r 0.0000 i ..-__--- ri ------- ri _______r1 _______rII _-_____r11 ------- ...O.lf.-R.o.a.d ....•:.1i 1rI _______1I _ _.1_ _ _rI ------- r1 ------- rI ------- ri - 11 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 .1733 0.1733 0.0000 281.4481 1 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 i 003 I 1 1 ' Total 96.0937 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.7733 O.t733 0.0010 287.4487 287.448t 0.0297 282.1909 11 803 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach, A -Page 135 M m I 00 00 O l0 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 28 Date: 5118/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ' ROG - NOX " '302 Fugitive Exhaust PM70' -.Fugitive 5dia0st PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBlo-0O2 Total.0O2- CH4 N20 CO2e PM10. PM70 'Total PM2.5- PM2.5 Total " Category lb/day- Ib/day ' Hauling 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 a0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 a 1 + I I I 1 i I I 1 I I I 1 1 + r 1 I I Vendor I 0.0000 1 a0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 a 1 0.0000 + t 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 + 1 I 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 + I 1 1 1 I I t 1 1 I 1 1 Worker 1 0.3205 1 0.2392 1 2.3393 t 4.9300e- 1 0.4918 1 3.5500e- I 0.4954 I 0.1304 1 3.2700e- 1 0.1337 + 1 490.3329 1 490.3329 1 0.0197 1 1490.8249 .1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 003 t 1 003 I 1 1 003 1 + 1 1 I + 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I1 + 1 1 1 Total 0.3205 0.2392 2.3393 4.9300e- 0.4918 3.5500e- 0.4954 0.1304 3.2700e- 0777 490.3329 490.3329 0.0197 490.8249 003 003 003 1 1 1 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 136 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM - - ROG" j NOx - CO �802 -Fugitive PM10' Exhaust PM7o 'PM10 Total Fugitive PM25 - -Exhaust-,: - PM2.5' _PM25 Total Bic-0O2. N_Bia-0O2 Total CO2. CH4 - N20 _ "' CO2e .Category.'.lb/day lb/day _ Mitigated •' 2.1176 1 61.9279 1 14.8453 1 0.1775 1 5.3873 1 0.6107 1 5.9980 1 1.5173 I 0.5842 1 2-1014 118,692.16118,692161 0.7139 1 118.710.01 •1 I •1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 r 1 I 1 • 1 96 I 96 I I 1 I 1 79 .________•�._____ ! 1 ----_ ------_ ! I 1 1 ........ . -------`.......... Unmitigated 2.1176 61.9279 14.8453 0.1775 5.3873 0.6107 5.9980 1.5173 0.5842 2.1014 18,692.16 t8,6927fi 0.7139 18,710.01 96 96 79 4.2 Trip Summary Information "Average Daily,T_rip. Rate "� _ _ -{_ _-Unmitigated:- ` ' ' - ; Mitigated -', - Land Used - „ ; -' 'Weekday - Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT -' Other Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 .................................................... ------------------------------------------------ - ------------ '------- Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 .................................................. `-_--_------;_-.... _... _ .............................. Parking Lot ; 0.00 1 0.00 I 0.00 ...................................... " __._'i ______-----T........._.V.........._......._._..........____________________ Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail '__..__ ` 22.62 1 22.62 22.62 329,312 329,312 ...........9.........................'._.....-_----`__------------. ` - -_-._;---_--..---..-.--.----.--------_--_._-_----- ------- Unrefri erated Warehouse -No Rail 128.18 i 128.18 ' 128.18 1,866,289 1,866,289 Total 150.80 150.80 150.80 2,195,601 2,195,601 4.3 Trip Type Information 1. - - I' - Miles ; I Trip% I Trip Purpose )% Other Asphalt Surfaces i 16.60 8.40 6_90 0.00 1 0.00 i 000 0 0 0 .................................... --------- 16.60 i 8.40 ;. ._ -.-r 6.90 _--_.....-_---r-----------._------____-_-____-_-_--_-_.-..--------- 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 •Oche.Non.AsphaltSurfaces••'_ _________--------------- __--.:_________t________ ! ___-_ --.------------------------------- Parking Lot_ I 16.60 8.40- 6.90 1.00 i 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 ..............s_ ____ __.______---.t_ - _ _- F-----__. ! ._ .. ................. Refrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 40.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 100.00 100 0 0 __ _ _ . .......................... .. __ __ -_ _.-._ ______- Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 40.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0 0 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 137 M Cn 00 v t0 w CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 4.4 Fleet Mix Page 23 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM Land Use - IDA -:: 'LDT1,- LDT2 _ MDV Li Li j MHO HHD 1 OBUS - UBUS I MGY 1 ' SBUS' - 'MH Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail; 0.000000• 0.000000: 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.1694001 0.0000001 0.2271001 0.603500: 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.000000 -C---L------- 1------- 1------- l------- 1------- 1------- 1____-_--L------- 1_______-L------- 4........ _UnreirigeratedWarehouseNo 0.000000I 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.1694001 0.000000I 0.227100I 0.603500I 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.000000 • I --_._ I 1 ... I I I ___-__--___I I I I 1 Rail ............ 4 _ _ - - - - ..i.__.....__-�______-_...._.___�--- _. -_. �...______ ;..._..._._._�_. �______-_�_______T__-___--_-_�_..._..___.� ........ i Oiher Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.530593• 0.041525: 0.1778601 0.1356791 0.022741: 0.006161: 0.0162081 0.0573651 0.0013021 0.0018461 0.0065341 0.000835: 0.001351 I Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.530593, 0.041525: 0,1778601 0.1356791 0.0227411 0.006161: 0.016208; 0.057365: 0.0013021 0.0018461 0.006534: 0.000835: 0.001351 4......_......9.......... 4 _------ y........ 4........ 4-------- E-------- F-------- F-------- F-------- F-------- F-------- F..... _ 4 ------- -------- Parkin Lot 0.530593: 0.041525: 0.177860: 0.135679: 0.022741: 0.006161: 0.016208: 0.057365: 0.001302• 0.001846: 0.006534: 0.0008350.001351 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ' AOG- _ -NOx' .. 'CO .. _ -502 ' "Fugitive PM10 'Eefiaust- PM10. �.PM70. .Total. fugitive. PM2:5, � -Exhaust '. PM2:5 PM2:5.Bio-0O2' Total " NBW-'CO2 TotaPCO2 CH4 -N20' - ." CO2e -_ category 1 eg ry - - - lb/day - Id/day - NaturalGas •1 0.0662 1 0.6018 1 0.5055 1 3.6100e- I I 0.0457 I 0.0457 1 1 0.0457 1 0.0457 6 1 722.2009 1722.2009 I 0.0138 1 0.0132 726.4926 Mitigated •r I 1 .r I 1 I 1 003 I 1 1 I I 1 . r I I I ..____.._. NaturalGas 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0138 0.0132 726.4926 Unmitigated 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 138 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ' - Naturaeall. ROG;' 'NOx ' '. CO7s02" '[ Fugitive Exhaust PM10 FugitiveT Exhaust PM2.5 Slo- CO2- NSio- CO2 Total'CO2, 'CH4 N20 CO2e. a Use PM10 ] PM10 Total PM25 PM2.5 Total - :Land:Uk - - lb/day b/day- Other Asphalt 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 o.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Surfaces 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 + • 1 1 , 1 I 1 I r , 1 1 Other Non- 1 0 •� 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces 1 , 1 :, 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + + , 1 1 1 1 ----- _------ 1 1 1 m_---___r_______r_______r_______r_______r___-_-_r _______r_______r_______ r ------- r------- r-------- r_______ Parking Lot 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 tl 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 • 1 • , 1 I , 1 I 1 1 , _.9_ _ .... F ...... ter._____r_.______r_______r_....-_____r_______r____----__r-______-_L_ T _ r_....____r_______r___.____r_.._-.___r .... _ Refri erased 5013.86 b 0.0541 1 0.4916 1 0.4129 1 2.9500e- 1 1 0.0374 1 0.0374 1 1 0.0374 0.0374 1 589.8664 1 589.8664 1 0,0113 1 0.0108 7 593.3717 Warehouse -No 1 Al 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o03 1 1 1 1 1 r r 1 1 1 1 1 Rail 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • T 1 1 1 1 Unrefrigarated 1 1124.84 +1 0.0121 1 0.1103 1 0.0926 1 6.fi000r r 1 8.3800e- 1 8.3800e- 1 1 8.3800e- 6.3800e- i � 132.3345 1 132.3345 1 2.5400e- 1 24300e- 1 133.1209 Warehouse -No 1 L 1 I +, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 r 1 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 1 Rail 1 1, r 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 j r 1 I Total 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0139 0.0132 726.4926 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 139 M rn I M co .D L Ln In CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM NaluralGa '" ROG - NOx 30 S02 ' 'Fugliive.t ;-Exhaust PM70 - Fugitive Exhaust. PM2.5 .EH. tal CO2 qH4 - N2Q' CO2es UseBM10 PM70 Total, PM2.5. PM2.5 Total-.Land'Use kBTU/yr. _ - - 'Ib/day - Ib/day 1 Other Asphalt 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 , 0.0000 1 Surfaces I •1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ., 1 I 1 i 1 1 I I • 1 I I 1 , Other Non- 1 0 •' 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 u 1 I 1 Asphalt surfaces _____ir----- I 1 1 �______ 1 1 I _ . 1 Parkin Lot I 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 n I I 1 , 1 n I 1 I I r I 1 I I • 1 1 I 1 1 n I 1 I I I I 1 I • 1 I I 1 Refrigerated 501386 +' 0.0541 1 0.4916 1 0.4129 1 2.9500e- 1 1 0.0374 1 0.0374 1 1 T 0.0374 0.0374 f ' 589.8664 1 589.8664 1 0.0113 1 0.0108 ' 593.3717 I Ir I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 f I 1 I Warehouse -No 1 1, 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 Rail Unrefrigerated 1 1.12484 :� 0.0121 1 0.1103 1 0.0926 1 6.fi000e- 1 1 8.3800e- 1 8.3800e- 1 r 8.3800e- ' 8.3800a- 1 1 132.3345 1 132.3345 1 2.5400e- 1 2.4300e- 1 133.1209 1 1, 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 003 I 003 003 ? 003 003 Warehouse -No 1 a, 1 1 1 1 1 Rail Total Total 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0662 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0139 0.0132 726.4926 003 1 1 77T 1 i 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 140 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM - 'ROG '' NOx" ; .CO. ;` ` S02 . Fug11 Exhaust PM70 � , P,M10 ! Total -Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total : Bio-0O2I- - NBIo-.0O2. - iTotal CO2 CH4 N20' CO2e, i ..Cfltegoryr." '.. ,..- -'_ ,- - ._. .- iblday:.•._ mlday - .. Mitigated •I 5.3919 16.1000e- 1 0.0645 I 0.0000 I 12.3000e- 123000e- I 12.3000e- I 23000e- • I 0.1357 1 0.1357 13.80001. I I 0.1451 •I .I I I 004 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 004 1 004 I I I I 004 I 004 I • I 1 1 I • I I I 004 I a I I 1 I I I I _ 1 • I_ _I _ 1 i ^- i _ Unmitlgated •• 5.3919 6.1000e- � 0.0645 0.0000 � � 2.3000e- 23000e- 2.3000e- _ �2.3000e- � 0,1357 0.1357 36000e- 0.7451 004 004 004 004 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated iROG- "NOx '- CO 'C. ,' "S02' Fugitive" ` _Exhaust l :. 'PM70 ' Fugitive' Fxhaust PM2.5 "Bio-0O2, NBIo- CO2 Total'CO2'. EH4 N20 ";-- CO2e PM10. ; _ PM10 .: Total PM25 PM2:5 Total - subcategory :..e v...- _. .-_- `_�.'. .._„_ _ ".Ib/day._ ,_--.lb/day Architectural •I 0.6200 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0009 1 I 1 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 Coaling •1 I I I I I I I 1 I • I I I I I ..C.._...--- ------- IrI Ir_Ir _Ir_Ir - I -I�_-_______• _______I________r___-___-________________-_-___-_-_-I _______-I _______rI ___----r -. onsumer 4:7657 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 .I I I 1 I I I I I Products • I I I I h Landscaping 6.2200e- i 6.1000e- 1 0.0645 J 0.0000 i i 2.3000e- i 2.3000e- 1 t 2.3000e- I 2.3000e- 1 0.1357 0.1357 3.6000e- i I 0.1451 .I 003 I 004 I 1 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 • I I I 004 I •• I I I I I • I I I I Total 5.3919 malitte- 0.m is 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 23000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.6000e- 0.7451 004 004 004 004 004 004 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 141 M rn I 00 -o to _w V CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 6.2 Area by SubCategory Miticiated Page 27 of 28 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5118/2017 11:42 AM - ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive .Exhaust PM10. Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O272 'Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e - PMIQ , : PM10 Total PM2.5 - PM2.5 Total I SubCategory Iblday lb/day Architectural •1 0.6200 1 1 r 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i r 0.0000 Coating i1 1 r 1 1 r r I • i i 1 1 a i 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 • i i 1 i , , Consumer •� 4.7657 1 1 � � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • � � 0.0000 i � � 0.0000 Products .1 i i i i 1 1 i .1 i i i i 1 1 i j i • i i r i .� 1 1 i 1 1 r i ____ � • i i 1 i i Landscaping .1 6.2200e. 16.1000e- 1 0.0645 1 0.0000 1 1 2.3000e- 23000e- 1 2.3000e- i 2.3000e- 0.1357 I 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 •� 003 1 004 1 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 • i i 1 004 1 .1 1 1 r r r • 1 1 ' Total 5.3919 6.1000e- 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 11 004 004 0a4 004 004 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type. :Number .Hours/Day - Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor .Fuel'Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 142 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 28 Date: 5/18/2017 11:42 AM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Equipment Type . ; 'Number u" Hours/Day ' 'HoursMea_r Horse Power =Load Factor Fuel Type rn Boilers M m Equipmenl'Typ'e Number Heat Input/Day = Heat Input Year -Boiler Rating Fuel Type to w User Defined Equipment W Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 143 m 01 I 00 00 9 l0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Page 1 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM Land,Uses ."- "' °"" Size - ` "" " - Metric Lot Acreage .Floor Surface Area - Population' Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 35.34 1000sgfl i 0.81 i 35,343.00 0 Unrefri erated Warehouse -No Rail 200.28 i 1000sgfl 4.60 i 200,277.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.10 I Acre i 2.10 91,476.00 0 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 65.13 1000sgft 1.50 i 65,130.00 0 ------------------------------ __________---____-___ ______-_-__ .--__-_________a____ _ __ -. _ ----------- Parking Lot 317.00 Space 2.85 126,800.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 144 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with information disclosed in IS. Land Use - Assumed 15 percent of warehouse land use would be refrigerated. Construction Phase - Operational Run Only. Off -road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Trips and VMT - Operational Run Only. Demolition - Grading - Architectural Coating - Reflects input parameters reflected in IS's air quality model. Vehicle Trips - Passenger Cars Only. Passenger cars make up 60% of entire vehicle trips. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Area Coating - Fleet Mix - Passenger Cars Only. Off -road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Energy Use - Table'Name Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 ; 1.00 .......................... __________ __-.__.....}___________ ___________ ----------.------... tblFleetMix HHD 0.06 0.00 .............................. .......... .-..----.-- }___________ ___________41 --------- -______-_ tblFleetMix HHD 0.06 I 0.00 IbReetMix LDA 1 0.53 1.00 ._____________________________y_-__..------.---_-___--______}_____________________________;_______----_.---__---_-.-.. tblFleetMix LDA ` 0.53 1.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 1 0.04 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 145 CalEEMod Version: CalEEM0d.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.00 _____________________________ ----------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------- tbIFleetM[x LHD1 1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 6.1610e-003 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 I 6.1610e-003 0.00 -------------------------------------------- _______________} ; ____-________________________..._.._-.-__________-_____ tblFleetMix MCY 6.5340e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 11 6.5340e-003 0.00 * tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 1 0.14 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 1.3510e-003 0.00 11 tblFleetMix MH 1 1.3510e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 1 0.02 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3020e-003 0.00 ..................... ............................. }-____________________________t-.__...._..._-.--___--____ tblFleetMix OBUS 11 1.3020e-003 ; 0.00 .............................;_____._...._._.__._._-_--____ }_____________________________T-_________.__._._-________ tblFleetMix SBUS 1. 8.3500e-004 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 8.3500e-004 0.00 ...................... ....... ;___.__-._.._._.__._----___.__ }_____________________________.;._______._._._-...--------- tblFleetMix UBUS 1. 1.8460e-003 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS I 1.8460e-003 0.00 tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 135,340.00 35,343.00 tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 200,280.00 200.277.00 '---------------------------- ---------------._._.---------0-----------------------_____----'----------'_"___._-_-.-. tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 4 35,340.00 35.343.00 tblLandUse LandUseS uareFeet 1 200,280.00 200,277.00 1bIOffRoadEquipmenl OftRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 lblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 _______________________ _ ___________ __________ _-_______ __________ tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnMmount { 2.00 0.00 ___________________4 ----------------------------- ------------------------------ ______________.__.._._-._. tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2017 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 0.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach, A -Page 146 m rn I m 00 v lfl W N N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00 ..................P.....---._;• ------------ .__..------------ .�..-------------------------------------------------._....- tblVehicleTri s CW_TTP 59.00 100.00 tblVehicleTri s CW_TTP 59.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP { 5.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00 tblVehicleTri s PB_TP 1 3.00 0.00 •----_-•--- ------------------------------------ tblVehicleTrips PB—TP It ,0.00 ----------------------------- ................... ---------- -i-------------------------------I-------------------------- tblVehicleTri s PR_TP 1 92.00 100.00 ......................--------------- ------------- ------------------------------- I ._.. - ._-._-___ tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 1 92.00 ; 100.00 tblVehicleTrips ST TR 1.68 ; 1.04 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.68 1.04 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1 1.63 ; 1.04 ............................. ......... _______.__ -___________ ___________4. --------- .._..-.._. tblVehicleTri s SU_TR 1 1.68 ; 1.04 -�! tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 ; 104 .______. ........ ......... _______.__ 4.............................. _....___. ........._ tblVehicleTri s WD_TR 1.68 1.04 2.0 Emissions Summary 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 147 M rn 00 v to w w W CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 2.1 Overall Construction Page 5 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/201712:19 PM ': "ROG +. " :NOx' "CO ' i' S02- Fugiive]j -Exhaust 'PM10: -Fugitive"-[, Exhaust PM2.5: ;Bio-0O27 N8io-00]'Total. 02 CH4 ' N20- CO2e PM70 PM70 Total , PM -5 -PM2.5. Total. - - - - - ... Year .� �% • . ; .. .: ... _.. tonsNr' ... . .... .. ... .. ,_.... . MT/yr. ,. .. 2017 •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.000o I 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 r 0.0000 r Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000a Mitigated Construction ROG I �NOx :. ""CO. � Sq2'' I N"' Fugitive"yExhaust•j'"'PM10 I, Fugit!Ve Exhaust: PM2.5' ,Bio-0O2, NBio- CO2 iTotal'CO2�:''ICH4., N20 �. �; 'CO2e`; ! _ .. PM70' PM10 Total PM2.5'-, :..- . PM2:5 _. Total _ -Year _. i .. ._. .. _.. , , .. -' ns/yr - A-o - _ _ - ... .. f MT/yr 2017 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 �. i I I I I I I I I I i i j I 1 I Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OD00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' - -'-. ROG '� NOx CO: S02' 'Fugltive ,� ,Exhaust ;', P.M10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5..; Blo-0O2I NBio-CO2 Total CO2: CH4" - 'N20- CO2e. PM10� ... ; PM10 i 'Total. PM2.5 PM2.5 .Total - ' Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Retluction 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 148 m rn 00 m -0 17 to W N -P CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 'Quarter Start, Date, Entl Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+ NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated nos +.NOX(tonsfquarter) Highest 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO` -' S02 Fugitive '.' Exhaust "'PM70 FugitiveExhaust PM2.5 'eio-0O2: Naio,CO2 Tolal CC2 CH4- N20 CO2e' ' PM10 PM10 „ Total PM2.5. PM2.5 Total _ ' Category '.: .' '- ' tans/yr MT/yr ` Area •1 0.9837 1 8.0000e- 1 8.0600e- 1 0.0000 1 13.0000e- 13.000Oe- I 13.0000e- 1 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1 0.0154 1 0.0154 1 4.000Oe- I 0.0000 1 0.0105 •I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 005 005 .I 1 005 1 003 1 1 1 005 005 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 � 1 1 1 005 1 � ___'R_ 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I r ._______ ______ _r_______ 1 I I 1 ___0 _____ Energy `� 0.0121 0.1098 0.0923 6.6000e- : 8.3500e- 18.3500e- 8.3500e- I 8.3500e 0.0000 760.0269 1 760.0269 0.0287 7.6600e- 1 763.0287 004 1 1 003 I 003 1 1 003 1 003 1 . 1 1 1 1 003 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I.I 1 Mobile •I 0.0855 1 0.1601 1 1.7101 1 5.0300e- I 0.5517 1 3.1100e- I 0.5548 1 0.1465 12.8700e- 1 0.1493 0.0000 1 464.7177 1454.7177 1 0.0123 1 0.0000 1 455.0255 003 1 I 003 1 I I 003 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I _ 1 I 1 1 Waste •I 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 44.9584 1 0.0000 I 44.9584 1 2.6570 1 0.0000 1 111.3826 d I I I I 1 I I I 1 a _____ - 1 1 I I Wa[er� i i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 17.2863 226.0545 i 243.3408 1.7848 i 0.0439 1 301.0290 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I j I r I I 1 i 1 ' Total 1.0813 0.2700 1.8104 5.6900e- 0.5517 0.0115 0.5632 0.1465 0.0113 0.1577 62.2447 1,440.814 1,503.059 4.4829 0.0515 1,630.482 11 003 5 2 2 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 149 In M I In 00 to w N to CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 24 Date: 5118/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational `-ROG NOz ; . CO " 802 : ' Fugitive PM10' `--'Fugitive • Exhaust' PM2.5 -COBio2'. NBio-0O2 ;Total CO2 CH4 120 CO2e -'"PM10 ]'Exhaust Total' �. PM2.5 - PM2.5 Total' - - .Category - _ - - tons/yr _ - " -- "MT/yr - Area 71 0.9837 18.0000e- 1 8.0600e- 1 0.0000 1 1 3.000Ge- 1 3.0000e- 1 13.0000e- 1 3.0000s- 0,0000 I 0.0154 1 0.0154 14.0000e- 1 0.0000 r 0.0165 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 005 1 003 1 I 1 005 I 005 1 1 005 I 005 . 1 1 1 I I 1 1 005 1 i_ 1 I I 1 I I I I _ _a_ _-__---______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r_______ ______,_______ I 1 1 1 , ------- Energy_______r_______r_______r •� 0.0121 1 0.1098 1 0.0923 16.6000e- 1 1 8.3500e- 1 8.3500e- 1 1 8.3500e- 1 8.3500e- . 0.0000 1760.0269 1 760.0269 1 0.0287 1 7.6600e- I I I I 1763.0287 004 1 I I I 1 1 .i 1 1 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I I I 003 1 •1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 . - I I I I I Mobile •1 0.0855 1 0.1601 1 1.7101 1 5.0300e- 1 0.5517 1 3.1100e- 1 0.5548 1 0.1465 1 2.8700e- I 0.1493 r 0.0000 1454.7177 1 454.7177 1 0.0123 1 0.0000 1455.0255 •I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 •I I 1 I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I r I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I _-.m- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 , Waste 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 44.9584 I 0,0000 1 44.9584 1 2.6570 1 0.0000 1111.3826 ---•m------ - 1------1 1 1 r 1 1 r- r---___-r-----__r_______r_______r__ r_______ _ r_______r _______r _______r_.__._. Water I 1 r 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 17.2863 122fi:0545 1 243.3408 1 1.7848 1 0.0439 � 301.0290 J 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I r 1 1 1 1 a I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I •1 I 1I I 1 I 1 1 I I I , Total 1.0813 0.2700 1.8104 5.6900e- 0.5517 0.0115 0.5632 0.1465 0.0113 0.1577 62.2447 1,440.814 1,503.059 4.4829 0.0515 1,630.482 003 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase P'Phase, I Number _ . `- Phase Name`i.'" ""` _Phase Type. ,- Start Date.: _ End=Date:um Days' � Week` '.Num Days' , Ptiase Description' , 1 -Demolition :Demolition '1/2/2017 '1/2/2017 5: 1: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 150 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 6.45 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) Off Road Equipment ' Phase Nariie I Offroad Equipment -Type Amount Usage. Hours ' Horse Power Load Factor Demolition 6Concrete/Industrial Saws i 0; 8.00, 811 0.73 Demolition 6Excavators 0; 8.00i 1581 0.38 ............................'--------------..--.------- 1 ------------.------. .+......... .......... Demolition -Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00• 247: 0.40 Trips and VMT Phase Name- 'CffroadlEquipment. ;'Worker Trip Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip'I Worker Trip .'Vendor Trip Hauling Trip. I Worker Vehicle. ' Vendor I Hauling - -Count Number -Number Number j Length - Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6• 0.00• 0.00: 0.00: 14.70• 6.90: 20.00•LD_Mix - :HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 151 rn m I fn 00 v to w N V CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG " NOx �CO "S02 Fu ipve" g iExhaust PM70 Fugitive � F�cfiaust' PM2.5� Bio CO2.:; NBIO CO2 "Total 602 -- CH4 �N20. , CO2e . I '_ " PM70 PM10 "; To10 i 'PM2.5 . hairs To2.5 , 'Category _ - _ _ _ . -tons/yr -" MT/yr .. Fugitive Dust •I 1 1 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 0.0000 I O.00DO I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I 1 I I i i .i I Off -Road I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I rotas 0.0a0o 0.0000 o.0a00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 oxatto o.0000 oxaao oxiiao o.0aoo o.Doot o.0000 o.0000 o.0000 I ox000 ROG� � Nsx co:_, -iS02 Fugitive -' 'Exhaust. PM70. 1 -Fugitive ' '&haust PM2S Bio-0O2' NBio=CC2 ;TOtaFCO2.: CH4 N20- " CO2e - ,. .. ._ " _.. ,. ... ... PM10 PM10 7olal PM25 PM2.5 Total. . _ Category- t .. .. - __ - -,,... .. .. to - '._-_ ,MT/yr. ,.. Hauling •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I a0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 •1 I 1 I I I 1 I I � I •1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 • I I I 1 I I 1 I Vendor •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0-0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 A 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 • I I 1 I I a 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I • I Worker •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 .I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 • • I I 1 I I 1 I I Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 152 to rn to co v to w 00 W CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2017 -'ROG NOz ', CO 'S02 -;Fugitive -Exhaust PM101 Fugitive ".Exhaust PM2:5 Bio-CO2 NBio-002 Total CO2 CH4 N20 '" CO2e f PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM25 Total Category '- _ tons/yr, MT/yi Fugitive Dust •1 1 1 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 \ 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 •1 I I 1 I r 1 I I I + I I I I •1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 \ I I I I cad OfTl-oRtal 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000� 0.0000 ••a1r I I1 I II1 111 I1 I1 I1 III 0.0000 oxalto 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG" ' NU*." GO ti -SO2' Fugitive ' 7FxFaost • PM70 !Fugitive `FxhausP .: PM2.5 Bio-0O2!, NBio-,CO2 TotalCO2, "'CH4' N2C' - ' CO2e - .... _.- _ _.. 1! PM70. ..._. Total. _._._ PM25- .PM2(5 .Total- .. ... Category - " - - " torls/yr - MT[yr Hauling i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 •I I I I 1 I I 1 I i I + I I I 1 1 ___• ------- 1 I I 1 1 I I I \ 1 I I I 1 Vendor •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 aowo 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 + 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 + I I I + I I 1 I Worker •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0,0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 \ 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I \ 1 1 i I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I \ 1 1 I Total O.oga0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 153 m on I no OJ U3 w t� 1D CalEEMod Version: CalEEM0d.2O16.3.1 Page 11 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile . ROG"' ., -.NOx CO SO2 .Fugitive- PM70 I Exhaust - PM10 .-'-__._•_ PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ___-` -Exhaust PM2i5 - _.'_ PM2.5' Total Slo-CO2 -_ NBio-0O2 _ (Total CO2 CH4' - N2O 1 CO2e. ' ... Category ,-_ .__+.-.-:_-ton�Yr .. � _- ..MTtyr Mitigated •' 0.0855 t 0.1601 i 1.7101 1 5.0300e- i 0.5517 1 3.1100e- 0.5548 0.1465 2.8700e- t 0.1493 0.0000 ' 454.7177 i 454.7177 t 0.0123 t 0.0000 455.0255 .� i t 003 t i t 003 i i i i i 1 003 t t t _'__...•' i ___ ...................... ....... ' ' .....' . t -------------- 4_v. - , Unmitigated 0.0855 0.1601 1.7101 5.0300e- 0.5517 3.1100e- 0.5548 0.1465 2.8700e- 0.1493 0.0000 454.7177 454.7177 � 0,0123 0.0000 455.0255 003 003 003 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate _ _ Unmitigated - ._ _. _ Mitigated - '--Land Usel - - - Weekday Saturday Sunday. Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces ' 0.00 l 0.00 ' 0.00 ....................................................�._______ ____; ........... ;.................__.__.. .......................... Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 t 0.00 0.00 • .... • • . • : __.__.______............................................................................ Parking Lot I 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 ..........9 ....... .................'............. ` t"'--------------.___.. ----- ...._--------------- -------------------------- Refri erated Warehouse -No Rail 36.75 i 36.75 ; 36.75 222,080 222,080 ...................................... i-----__----t......._...:.....__._.__..__________:_ .............. Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail I 208.29 i 208.29 ' 208.29 1,258,579 1,258,579 Total 245.04 1 245.04 245.04 1,480,659 1,480,659 4.3 Trip Type Information 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 154 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM Miles Trip %- Trip Purpose % - Land Use - - -, ` H=W or.C-W i H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW' H-W or C-W ,'H-S or GC. H-_O or C-NW Primary _ Diverted _ Pass -by Other Asphalt Surfaces g 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 i 0.00 0 0 0 P ...........L_ Other No .-As halt Surfaces _ _ _-T ; 16.60 �... i 8.40 _ ..tr___________________________________----------------- 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 Parkl Lot _ j 16.60 j 8.40 6.90 _ __ 0.00 1 0.00 i 0.00 0 0 0 ...... • :g .L__________:._________._ ____________}_...._.._r .......................e __......._e--._________..._. Refrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 1 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 - .y... f ............................. a.. ;.......................................... Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use '-LOA '-LDTt 1 iDT2 _ MDV - LHD1- J. LHD2 MHD -HHD. OBUS UBUS ._ MCY SBUS MH Refriaerated Warehouse -No Rail • 1.000000• 0.000000! 0.000000, 0.000000! 0.000000! 0.000000! 0.000000! 0.000000! 0.000000! 0.000000! 0.000000! 0.000000! 0.000000 -------- i--------- Unrofrigerated Warehouse -No 1.0000001 0.000000 Rail __________________+_-.---_.F_____.___. Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.530593• 0.041525 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.530593• 0.041525 ------------------------ -y. Parking Lot 0.530593• 0.041525 5.0 Enerav Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 0.000000 i 0.000000 i 0.000000 i 0.000000 •- r r -r T r r-- r- r •341 ---: 0.1778601 0.135679 0.022741 0.006161 0.016208 0.0573651 0.0013021 0.001846 0.0065341 0.000835 0.001351 . 1 1 i i 1 1 i 1 0.1778601 0.135679: 0.0227411 0.006161 : 0.016208: 0.0573651 0.001302: 0.001846: 0.0065341 0.000835: 0.001351 0.177860: 0.135679: 0.0227410.006161: 0.016208: 0.057365• 0.001302• 0.001846: 0.006534: 0.000835: 0.001351 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 155 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual - ROG .. _. NOx CO SO2 Fugitve PM70. -Exhaust PM10 .. PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5. Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2'- CH4 N20 ' CO2e Category' .. ,. tons/Yr ...MT/yr Electricity i 0.0000 i 0.00D0 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 a 0.0000 640.4584 i 640.4584 1 0.0264 1 5.4700e- 1 642.7497 Mitigated .i 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 j + 1 1 i 003 _.•'•______ i 1.._._._-_______ _____ _ ------- Electricity i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 640.4584 i 640.4564 0.0264 1 5.4700e- 1 642.7497 Unmitigated 003 a i i 1 1 1 i 1 1 _ + 1 NaturalGas 0.0121 1 0.1098 i 0.0923 1 6.6000e- 1 1 8.3500e- 18.3500e- I 1 8.3500e- I 8.3500e- + 0.0000 119.5685 i 119.5685 1 2.2900e- i 2.190De- 120.2790 Mitigated •i 1 i 1 004 i r 003 i 003 003 003 + r i 1 003 1 003 ...._..,.'..._.._r..___..r _______�_______�_ ._...._.r ______.------- F _ _ _ NaturalGas 0.0121 0.1098 0.0923 6.6000e- 8.3500e- 8.3500e- 8.350De- 8.3500e- 0.0000 119.5685 119.5685 2.290De- 21900a. 120.2790 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 156 m in I rn 00 to W W N CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use- NaturalGas Unmitigated Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM " NaturalGa ' ROG NOx CO2- 'S Fugitive Ex Exhaust PM70 v :Fugitie- Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2' NBiorCO2 Total'CO2 CH4- N20, CO2e s.Use "O' . PM10 PM10 Total. . PM2.5 PM2.5 �' Total - - Land Use 'kBTUlyr tonsryr MTryr Other Asphalt 1 0 .I 0.0000 1 O.000D 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 Surfaces ....__..___ __-_ ____-_ I 0.00001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- 1 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I Asphalt Surfaces 1 I 1 __---�r1 1 I I -_--- I I 1 _1 1 I ____..__ 1 _ ___---r_______r_______r _______r_ �___-__-r _______,._______r_______ r_______r_______r _______n._. _ a : I Pa_rking Lot 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 , 0.G000 1 1 u 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I r Ar_______-_____ ____-_.____0_r--______-______r_______-______ 1 Relrigerated 1 1.8300Ge +i 9.8700e- 1 0.0897 1 0.0754 15.400De- I 1 6.8200e- 1 6.8200e- 1 1 6.8200e- 6.8200e- ! 0.0000 97.6590 1 97.659D 1 1.8700e- 1 1.7900e- I 9fi.2393 at 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Warehouse -No 1 +006 +, 003 I 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 I 1 003 OD3 1 1 003 1 003 , Unrefrigerated 1 410568 h 2.2100e- I 0.0201 I 0.0169 11.2000e- I 1 1.5300e- 11.5300e- I 11.5300e- ' 1.5300e- 1 0.0000 21.9095 I 21.90951.9095 14.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- 22.0397 1 +, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t r 1 1 1 Warehouse -No 1 11 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 I 1 003 003 t 1 I 004 I 004 I Rail 1 t1 I 1 I I 1 I I I f I I 1 Total 0.0121 0.1098 0.0923 6.6000e- 8.3500e. 8.3500e. 8.3500e- 8.3500e• 0.0000 119.5685 119.5685 2.2900e- 2.1900e- 720.2790 il 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 157 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM " NaturalG@ ROG NO%' - ' CO' S02 fugitive Eztiaust.. PM10 "Fugitive " - Exhaust '-.PM2.5 'Bio-0O2' NBio-:CO2 -TotaP,CO2 CH4' N20 CO2e . s.Use - - ' PM10 'PM70 Total PMP 5 PM2:5. Total Land -Use ' 'k0Ttlryr' ' - -' - - ton syr ^0.0000 - MTyr " Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OoOo 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 r 0.0000 Surfaces I i i ; ; 1 i ; ; i i ; 1 1 •� I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I • 1 1 I 1 , Other Non- 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 a 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 n 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 • I 1 1 I 1 Asphalt Surfaces I u 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I � • 1 1 1 I 1 _--__-1 _ 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 • 1 Pan �01 1 0 •� 0.0000 1 o.0000 1 o.g000 1 o.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.6000 1 0.0000 1 o.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 rki 1 u 1 I I 1 I b 1 i 1 • 1 t I , •I 1 I 1 1 t I I 1 • � I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I _�__-_-.._ ... _ _ ....1 ......... _...--__..--__--.. _______________-____.___r________-____--_----______ _ __ _ _ _-� . _ _ . _ . _; _.______-__--_-_-__-____e-------------- 1 1.83006e L 9.8700e- 1 0.0897 1 0.0754 1 5.4000e- 1 1 6.8200e- 1 6.8200e- 1 1 6.8200e- ' 6.8200e- 1 0.0000 97.6590 1 97.6590 1 1.8700e- 1 1.7900e- 98.2393 Refrigerated0e- I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 Warehouse -No a, 1 +006 a, 003 1 1 1 004 � 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 � 1 1 003 1 003 1 Rail 1 F-----F-----F----F-------f'------------- i - - - - - - -F----F--F------F--� - - - - - - - Unrefrigerated 1 410568 a, 2.21000, 0.0201 1 0.0169 1 1.2000e- 1 1.5300e- 1.5300e- 1 1.5300e- ' 1.5300e. 0.0000 21.9095 1 21.9095 1 4.2000e- 14.0000e- 22.0397 1 A. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Warehouse -No 1 a, 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 CO3 003 1 1 004 I 004 Rail 1 i1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Total 0.0121 0.1098 0.0923 6.6000e- 8.3500e- 8.3500e- 8.3500e- 8.3500e- 0.0000 119.5685 179.5685 2.2900e- 2.1900e- 120.2790 11 004 003 003 003 0031 i 003 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 158 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitiqated - Electricity. 'Total CO2 "CH4 N20. CO2e - Else " Land Use '-kWhtyr- -MT/yr " Other Asphalt 0 •' 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 Surfaces 1 r r '- Other Non- 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 O.000D Asphalt Surfaces 1 __F----------------- r_______r______ ----------------------- Parking Lot 1 111584 •' 35.5531 1 1.4700e- 1 3.000Oe- ' 35.6803 I 1 u j 003 j 004 Refrigerated 1 1.41584e 1' 451.1171 1 0.0186 3.8500e- ' 452.7310 Warehouse -No i +006 i; i i 003 i -.-.--ated Unrefrigerated 1 482668 153.7882 ' 6.3500e- ' 1.3100e- ' 154.3384 Warehouse -No i 4 i 003 i 003 i Rail Total 640.4584 0.0264 5.4600er - 642.7497 11 003 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 159 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitinated - Electricity, Total'CO2' CH4 ' N20' CO2e' °IUse " Land Use' -, 'kWh/rr '_ MTlyr Other Asphalt r 0 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces I------� �----- �-------r•_•_.._ Other Non- i 0 �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces a_ Parking Lot i 111584 �- 35.5531 i 1.4700e- 3.0000e- 35.6803 , 003 i 004 Refrigerated 1 1.41564e L 451.1171 0.0186 3.8500e- ' 452.7310 Warehouse -No I +006 l; 003 •••_Rail Unrefrigeraled r 482668 1, 153.7882 r 6.3500e- r 1.3100e- ' 154.3384 Warehouse -No i; i 003 I 003 RaI h Total 640.4584 0.0264 5.4600e- 72.7497 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 160 M rn 00 v to w w rn CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM ' ; ROG. ' ; NOx. . "CO 'S02, Fugitive.-, PM10 Exhaust ' PM10 "PM10 - Total Fugitive'. PM25. Exhaust PM2.5 , 'PM2.5, Total ' .810-C710 CO2 'Total:CO2., CH4 - N20 CO2e. Category'.tonsryr-MT/yr Mitigated 0.9837 1 8.0000e- 8.0600e- 1 0.0000 I 1 3.000Oe- 1 3.0000e- i 1 3.0000e- 1 3.0000e- r 0.0000 0.0154 1 0.0154 14.0000e- 1 0.0000 0.0165 .1 .1 1 I I 005 I 003 -1 I I I 1 1 005 1 005 I I I 1 005 i 005 r 1 I 1 1 r r 1 I 005 I , I I I i UnmiOgmed 0.9837 8.0000e- 8.06OOe- 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0154 0.0154 4.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0165 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 6.2 Area by Subcategory Unmitigated ' • .' ROG ; -NOx "- CO' .' ' - S02 - - 'Exhaust' --PM10 fugitive- Exhaust_ PM2.5' ' 310- C7 io- CO2 'Total'CO2 - CH4 -I.-- N20 "' CO2e ' 1!"Fugitive- Total PM2_5 PM2.5 Total - 'Subcategory" -" - -. to"r - - '" MT/yr - - Architectural •r 0.1132 1 1 I I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Coating a I 1 I I 1 I I 1 r r I I I � _. _ --- I 1 I 1 _____ - I 1 1 � r I I I r_______r_______r_______-_______ Consumer 0.8697 1 1 I 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 Products a 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 r r 1 1 I ,r _______I 1 1 1 1 I 1 ____! _ r .1_______r_______r_______r_______r_______r____O__r__ r_______ _ -_______�____-__r I 1 1 t i ------- r_______r _______r ------- Landscaping 7.8000e- 1 8.000Oe- 1 8.0600e- 1 0.0000 1 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- I I 3.000Oe- 1 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0154 i 0.0154 4.0000e- i 0.0000 • 0.0165 ., 004 I 005 I 003 1 I 1 005 1 005 1 I 005 005 1 1 1 005 1 •t 1 I � r I I 1 Total 0.9837 8.0000e- 8.0600e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0154 0.0154 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.0165 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 161 m rn I 00 00 _0 v J W UU V CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by Subcategory Miticiated Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 3OG pox - CO S02 -Fugitive ','Exhaust PM10 .Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2' CH4 N20 CO2e _ - PM70 PM70 Total. PM2.5 PM2.5 __ _ Total - Subcategory tobslyr MT/yr Architectural 0.1132 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Coating I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I __•R------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 Consumer 1 0.8697 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0,0000 Products 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r i 1 1 1 i ...___.P ._.._.; _______ Landsca in B •1 7.B000e- 1 B.000Oe- 1 8.O600e- 1 0.0000 1 1 3.000Oe- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.000Oe- 1 3.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.0154 1 0,0154 1 4.0000e. 1 0.0000 1 0.0165 I 1 I I I I 004 1 005 1 003 1 1 1 005 1 I 005 1 1 1 005 i 005 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 005 I 1 1 r Total 0.9837 8.0000e- 8.0600e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0154 0.0154 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.0165 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 162 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual " _ Total CO2 _ CH4 "" N20 CO2e Category. MTNr... Mitigated 243.3408 1.7848 0.0439 r 301.0290 r i Unmitigatetl k 243.3408 • 1.7848 0.0439 • 301.0290 lµ i rr7 7.2 Water by Land Use 00 t- Unmitigated w w 00 ` Indoor/Out 'Total CO2 CH4 " N20 CO2e door Use`, Land Use " Moil ' ' - ` ' MT/yr Other Asphalt i 010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Surfaces i n r r _.___...___F------ 41 -_______r_ e_______r ------- Other Non- I 0/0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i •r ___r______________r_______ Parking LOI t 0 /0 •� D.D000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t n ___ - _ _ Refrigerated 18.17238/ 4 36.4980 r 0.2677 � 6.5800e--? 451505 Warehouse -No i 0 ii i OD3 Rail Unrefrigera[ed r 46.3147/ +• 206.8428 i 1.5171 r 0.0373 255.8785 Warehouse -No i 0 Rail +• Total 243.3408 1.7848 0.0439 307.0290 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 163 rn 0) I M 00 U3 W W 10 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 24 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2- ' CH4 - N20: CO2e '. tlodi Use: _ ' Land Use "1 Mgal "` - .MT/yr' - Other Asphalt 010 &i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i n I t i 1e Other Non- 1 0/0 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i n t i i Parking Lot r 0/0 n 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 ui Refrigerated 8.17238 / i, 36.4980 0.2677 6.5800e- 45.1505 Warehouse -No i 0 i; i i 003 i _•__Rail Unreingerated 146.31471 i, 206.8428 1.5171 0.0373 i 255.8785 Warehouse -No r 0 A Rail r r Total 243.3408 1 1.7848 0.0439 301.0290 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 164 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 24 Date: 5/18/201712:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual CategorvNear Total CO2I - CH4 N20 - CO2e MTryr Mitigated 44.9584 1 2.6570 1 0.0000 111.3826 __ Unmitigated 44.9584 2.6570 0.0000 111.3826 L4 i 8.2 Waste by Land Use 00 Unmitigated w O Waste .' .Total CO2. CH4 N20 CO2e IDisposedt - Land. Use tons MT/yr -- Other Asphalt t 0 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces t t t Other Nan- i 0 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces u __ u I i Packing Lot t 0 �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t u I 1 33.22 �� 6.7434 0.3985 0.0000 16.7064 Warehouse -No Warehouse -No t 6 _Rail ___ '- ------aF------F------- E-----_�- " ---- Unreldgerated 188.26 L 38.2151 2.2585 0.0000 94.6762 Warehouse -No Rail Total 44.9584 2.6570 0.0000 111.3826 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 165 m rn I In 00 v l0 W A CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated ' I —waste 'Total CO2 CH4 N211 CO2e :Disposed .Land Use dons MT/yr Other Asphalt 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces I u 1 1 _F ------ „------- ------- r------- Other Non- 1 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces u 1 1 , tf Parking Lot 00 1 0 •' 0.00 � 0.0000 0.0000 � r 0.0000 u a , I 3.22 6.7434 0.3985 0.0000 16.7064 Warehouse -No Rail _,,,__- ---- F------------ _4 - Unretrigerata 1 188.26 4 38.2151 r 2.2585 1 0.0000 ' 94.6762 Warehouse -No Rail Total 44.9584 2.6570 0.0000 111.3826 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type 'Number - Hours/Day DaysNear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators .Equipment Type - Number ,Hours/Day j Hours/year Horse Power - 'Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type- "' Number - ' - "Heat Input/Day Heat .Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 166 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 24 Date: 5/18/2017 12:19 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Annual m M User Defined Eauioment m 00 , Equipment'Type -D D w A 11.0 Vegetation 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 167 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Page 1 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM Land. Uses - - ., - size, - --- - " -Metric I Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area, ;I" -Population .I Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 35.34 1 1000sgft 0.81 I 35,343.00 0 p.._...._....._.._..._._.._....:.._._.._.__.__..............j______________ --_____-_--_-_____............... .......................... Unrefri erated Warehouse -No Rail 20 0.28 1000sgfl_. 4.60 200,277.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.10 Acre 2.10 91,476.00 0 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 65.13 i 100osgft i 1.50 65,130.00 , 0 Parking Lot 317.00 Space 2.85 126.800.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m7s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 168 m rn m 00 v io w a A CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with information disclosed in IS. Land Use - Assumed 15 percent of warehouse land use would be refrigerated. Construction Phase - Operational Run Only. Off -road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Trips and VMT- Operational Run Only. Demolition - Grading - Architectural Coating - Reflects input parameters reflected in IS's air quality model. Vehicle Trips - Passenger Cars Only. Passenger cars make up 60% of entire vehicle trips. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Area Coating - Fleet Mix - Passenger Cars Only. Off -road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Energy Use - Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM "'Table: Name- I Column Name I Default Value I New Value IblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 1.00 tblFleetMix HHD 1 0.06 0.00 tblFleetMix HHD 1 0.06 0.00 tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 1.00 .............................................................-_____________________________ tblFleetMix LDA 1 0.53 -..---.---_-__________-_... 1.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 1 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 1 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT2 1 0.18 0.00 ------------------------------ __________ .---- _---4---------__ _______--__ ------ ____ __________, tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 169 M I 00 tb v lO w A to CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 tblFleetMix Page 3 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer LHD7 .............................;.______---------------------- tblFleetMix LHD1 .............. ............... ;_____.__.__._..__------------ tblFleetMix LHD2 .............................;_____.__.._______------------ IbIFIeetMix LHD2 tblFleetMix MY Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM 0.02 0.00 ------------------- +-___.-_._._._._._____-_._. 0.02 0.00 ------------------- 6.1610e-003 -------------------------- 0.00 ___________________ 6.1610e-003 .____________-_______-_._. 0.00 -------------------- 6.5340e-003 ! ______--_--_--_____.._____ 0.00 ........................................................... ------------------------------ T._.__....._._.._.._______- tblFleetMix MY 6.5340e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 1 0.14 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 1 0.14 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 1 1.3510e-003 ; 0.00 ............................. ;----------------- _.......... _,}.________--______-____________t__________-_________--_--- tblFleetMix MH I 1.35100-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 IbIFIeetMix MHD 1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS I 1.3020e-003 j 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS I 1.3020e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS I 8.3500e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 8.3500e-004 0.00 ........_ _________ __________ ___-------w,}________ ________ __________--.-.-._._ tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8460e-003 ; 0.00 ............................. ----------------------------- {..________ ________ _-_.._._. _._.__..._ tblFleetMix UBUS I 1.8460e-003 0.00 tblLandUse BuildingSpaoeSquareFeet 35,340.00 35,343.00 tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet I 20D,280.00 i 200,277.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 35,340.00 35,343.00 ---------------- '-'---__'_••' ;..._--••••-----q--------------F-------------------------------.---------_•'•_•'•••_•••- tblLandUse LandUseS uareFeet 200,280.00 200,277.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 11 1.00 ; 0.00 lblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1 3.00 ; 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount -t- 2.00 0.00 _____________________________i ----------------------------- -_____________________________;______--___-_-______--._._ tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2017 lblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 O.OD 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 170 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00 ..__.... _........ 4----------------------------- }___________ ___________{-------------------------- tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 100.00 _____________________________q ----------------------------- ------------------------------ ;___________.___-_.. _. -. tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 100.00 tblVehicleTri s DV_TP 5.00 0.00 tblVehicleTri s DV_TP 5.00 1 0.00 ................. ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 100.00 tblVehicleTri s PR_TP V 92.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1 1.68 1.04 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.68 1.04 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.68 ; 1.04 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.68 ; 1.04 ............................. ............................. }___________ __________ .......................... tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 ; 1.04 .._..... ........ ......... _......_..;_____..._..- ---------- _________ ---------- tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 1.04 2.0 Emissions Summary 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 171 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Date: 5/18/201712:20 PM 1 'ROG.NOx 'CO S02. FugOive. ; Exhaust, PM70 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bio-0O2. NBio-0O2 Total CO2. CH4 N20 CO2e. ' - - PM10 � PM10 Total PMZS PM2.5 Total ' ..:_' ., .. .... .......... .'Iti/da , . i _.. ..._... _ .. _ •. _ _ ,_ Year '. _.. y . ' :_.._ -. - lb/day ay 2017 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 a Maximum o.00ao o.00ao o.a000 a.0000 oxilao o.a0o0 o.0000 o.oaao o.aaoo 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.0000 o.0000 omoo o.oaoo M m I 00 Cu v t0 w Mitigated Construction V '.ROG ''Nox ^11`"CO` t' S02 Fugitive: '.Exhaust a- PM10 "Fugitive `�"Exhausl %•:-PM25; . :Blo•c02- NBIo-0O2 TotallCO2= "-.CH4 N20 '. CO2e - - PM10 PM10 Total, -_ ;PM25. _ PM2.5 Total "i - _ Year - - _ Ib/day lb/day .Ib/ 2017 0 0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 1 ii.o0oo 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 11 I � � i Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 " "ROG -NOx. CO S02. -'Fugitive- ;Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust' -' PM2.5 I Bio-.0O2, NBio-CO2. TotarCO2, CH4 N20. - CO2e ' - PM10 PM10 Total PM25 PM2.5 Total - Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 172 1n rn 1 m 00 w w W CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG : -_ NOx ' CO. S02. ',Fugitive Exhaust :PM10. Fugitive: Exhaust PM2.5 �Bio-.0O2 'NBio-'CO2 Total CO2, CH4 ' :' N20 "CO2e -: PM10 -PM10 Total PM2:5 ;PM2S Total. j'• ' Category; : - - - Iti/day "' - .Ib/day Area •1 5.3919 1 6.1000e- 1 0.0645 1 0.0000 1 1 2.3000e- 12.3000e- I 12.3000e- 1 2.3000e- 1 0.1357 1 0.1357 1 3.8000e- 1 1 0.1451 .1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 .1 1 004 1 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 I 004 . 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 004 1 1 ........ _ I I 1 I I I I I ; i 1 I I Energy 0.0662 i 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 1 1 0.0457 1 0.0457 i 0,0457 0.0457 722.2009 i 722.2009 0.0138 i 0.0132 726.4926 •� tl 1 1 1 003 I I I I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ____R _______------- r------- e------- r------- r _______r _______------- r------ _ _ 1 1 1 _______�------- r------- r------- Mobile •1 0.5762 1 0.7992 1 11.0233 1 0.0303 1 3.0903 1 0.0171 I 3.1074 1 0.8192 1 0.0158 1 I 0.8350 � 13,014.39513,014.3951 0.0828 1 13,016.465 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 8 1 1 Total 6.0343 1.4017 11.5933 0.0339 3.0903 0,0631 3.1534 0.8192 0.0618 0,3810 3,736.732 3,736.732 0.0970 0.0132 3,743.103 11 6 9 5 Mitigated Operational - 'ROG' NOx'-] "COS ,' S02-', Fugitive"'"Exhaust "PMI -'Fugitive Exhaust-] PM2.5'- Bio-0O2 NBio- CO2 'Total CO2'" CH4' N20'" -'CO2e..- - PM10 'Total' PM25 PM2.5 - Total -' `lb/day - '_ ... _ _ ... - .'-. Ib/day._.,.. Area •1 5.3919 1 6.1000e- 1 0.0645 1 0.0000 1 1 2.3000e- 1 2.3000e- I 12.3000e- I 2.3000e- 1 1 0.1357 1 0.1357 1 3.8000e- 1 r 0.1451 •1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I .1 1 004 1 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 004 1 1 .___R_______r_______r_______�_______r_______r _______r _______r _______r _______ _ . r------- r------- r_______r Energy •1 0.0662 1 0.6018 1 0.5055 13.6100e- 1 1 0.0457 1 0.0457 1 1 0.0457 1 0.0457 1 1 722.2009 1 722.2009 1 0.0138 1 0.0132 726.4926 u I 1 1 I I I I 1 •1 I 1 1 003 1 . 1 1 1 1 -- Mobile •I 0.5762 1 0.7992 1 11.0233 1 0.0303 1 3.0903 1 0.0171 1 3.1074 1 0,8192 1 0.0158 1 0.8350 1 13,014.39513,014.3951 0.0828 1 13,016.465 •1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 4 4 1 8 •r I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 j . 1 1 1 1 1 Total 6.0343 1.4017 11.5933 0.0339 3.0903 0.0631 3.1534 0.8192 0.0618 0.8810 3,736.732 3,736.732 0.0970 0.0132 3,743.103 0 0 5 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 173 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 16 Date: 5/1812017 12:20 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer ROG ".NOx CO S02." Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive ;Exhaust PM2.5 9I.-008 NBio-0O2 Total'CO2: CH4 N20 CO2e " 1. PM10 ', PM10 Total PM PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction I I 1 1 1 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase -Phase Number 11 Phase 'Name' - --Week Phase Type - Start Date " -End=DataNum Days' Num'Days" Phase. Description 1 :Demolition -Demolition ;1/2/2017 :1/2/2017 5: P Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 m m rrn Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 ou co Acres of Paving: 6.45 w A 1O Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment PhaseNameOffroad Equipment Type Amount Usage. Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws 0' 8.00; 81 0.73 'Excavators 158, 0.38 Demolition I 0, 8.00: Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers 0' 8.00: 247; 0.40 Trips and VMT Phase Name--',[Offroad'Equipment Count Worker Trip Number f VendorrTrio Number I Hauling Trip Number 'Worker Trip 'Length Vendor Trip .Length I'Hauling Trip Length WorkO Vehicle Class 1. Vendor Vehicle Class ' Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6' 0.00: 0.00; 0.00' 14.70; 6.90; 20.00'1-D_Mix HDT_Mix 'HHDT 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 174 to m m w -0 tQ w If 0 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site BOG' "-,''NOz = - CO"-" S02 Fugitive ' Exhaust-'PM70 Fugitive Exhaust'PM25 .Diq-0O2, NBitr CO2 'Total CO2 CH4. N20 "'" ,CO2e PM10. PM10' Totat PM2.5 PM2.5 Total .. ." ' Category `�. r -lb/day _ . ,. .. Ib/day' Fugitive Dust •I I I I 1 00000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 I I 0.0000 I t t - r--------------- I I I . I Olt -Road •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 LIMtt R T .. rM. . . • - - BOG - NOk- ` ' _ co' ; ' S02 ' fugitive - "Exhaust - ' 'PM10 ]-fugitive . Exhaust, PM25 - 'Bid CO27 CO2 Total CO2' - CH4 N20 - CO2e ,_PMlo PM70 Total .-PM2.5 . "P1,12.5 " Total .. . Category, ... . _ - . _. .. ...... ... -lb/day. - _ " Ib/day. ' ... ... - Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 acilo0 0.0oo0 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 i a _______r-______r_______�_______�____ ___�_______rI _I _-. I -I - I I r------- �_____ 0.1 . 00000 0.000000000000000.00000.00000.0000I . . . . I 0.0000___Vendo •I I I I I I I I I I . I I I , •I I I I I I I 1 'I I . I I I 1 IIr F_______________ I I I I _______ Worker •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I I I I I I I I I I r i i i Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 175 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM " "ROG 'NOx"1 - CO' -S02 Fugitive pEihausl PM10 ;Fugitive Exhaust PM2:5 Do-0O2 Naio-0O2 ,TotaID02' CH4 N20 O02e PM70 PM10 Total • PM2.5 PM25 Total - ' Category L- - `- 'lb/day' - - . ib/day'; Fugitive Dust •I 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.00oo 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • I 1 0.0000 1 1 1 0.0000 tl I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 • I I 1 1 .I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 • I I 1 1 ... ..___----------- .I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 • ______ �.-_.0000 _-0000 I I 1 1 .------- Off -Road 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 .I •1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I t •1 1 1 I I 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off -Site - ..ROG - NOx ' ,- CO 502: Fugitive-= 'Exhaust , PM10 . ",Fugitive " -Eihauet - :" .PM25 . ;Do- C07 NBio- CO2 'Total CO2' ; CH4 "N20- " ` CO2e - PM10 PM70 " 'Total PM2.5 .. PM2.5 _.__ Total I. ___ Category to/day lb/day - Hauling 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 A i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 1 0.000D i •1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 • •1 1 1 1 I I I I I • I I 1 1 I Vendor •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 .I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I 1 1 1 Worker 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 ' 0.0000 I I 1 1 1 I I I I • I 1 1 1 i a I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 .I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 • • I 1 I I I I 1 Total 0.0000 0.0000 oxatio 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 176 M rn I M 00 -0 U3 W to M CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM ' ROG ,'";NOx CO - S02 _ fugitive -[ PM70-.'^PM70 Exhaust 'PM10' Total -;Fugitive ` PM2:5-PM2i5 Exhaust. 1, PM2.5 "� Total _.. Blo-0O2; NBIo-0O2 .. _ 'Total 002 '.CH4 120 "' CO2e 7 . .. _ Category -_ " .. .. lb./day , Iti/day Mitigated 0.5762 r 0.7992 I 11.0233 1 0.0303 1 3.0903 0.0171 3.1074 1 0.8192 1 0.0158 I 0.8350 1 3,014.395 1 3,014.395 1 0.0828 - 3,016.465 1 4 4 I 8 Unmitigated 0.5762 0.7992 11.0233 0.0303 3.0903 0.0171 3.1074 0.6192 0.0158 0.8350 3,014.395 3,014.395 • 0.0828 3,016.465 4 4 8 4.2 Trip Summary Information "Average Daily Tiip. Rate _. -- -. _ _... Unmitigated _ _ _ _ Mitigated _ Land Use - - . .- - - - .. ..: _.--- Weekday ._ . _ _- __ Saturday - Sunday ._ .. _ - Annual VMT ._ __ .._ Annual VMT _. Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 ................................................... I ------------ .,------------------------------------ ------................... Other Nor: -Asphalt Surfaces. 0.00 1 0.00 ; 0.00 • ...• _ ............"•---•------- _.......... --------------------------------------------------- Parking Lot 1 0.00 10.00 0.00 ................................................... .r-----------T......__...................... y--____-_____-_-----_-___-. Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail .........................1............. 1 36.75 1 ---------- 36.75 1 36.75 222,080 ________--.--_--_-------:---------.-_-------------- 222,080 ...........9 fri------_------- Unreerated Warehouse -No Rail 208.29 i 1 208.29 208.29 1,258,579 1,258,579 Total 245.04 245.04 245.04 1,480,659 1,480,659 4.3 Trip Type Information 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 177 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM 1-1 "" -Miles -- I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I- = Land Use- ' - I 'H=W or C W I"H SprC-C'j H-O brC-NW IH-W:orC-WI H-S or C-C"I H-O or C-NW' l Primary I Diverted I Pass -by . .I Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 I 8.40 6.90 ; 0.00-_ 1 0.00 i 0.00 ; 0 0 0 _ ........................_ ___r_______-_-_ ___t_--------------------------------------------------- - Other daces 16.60___j 8.40 6.90 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 0 :_ 0_ .Non-Asphal;S __ __ ___-. ... �_________ } __= r ...... ._. _ _0 _.__�_ _ _ _ Parking Lot i 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 0 ; 0 0 ..y__________ _ _ _ _ _________1L _.____...r .......... .... ______- Refrigerated Warehouse -No y 16.60 {{ 8.40 6.90 100.00 i 0.00 0.00 100 0 ; 0 _ _ _ Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No ; 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Lan&Use _'� LDA --I. -LDT1- LDT2 'MDV LHD7. -LHD2 _ MHD- - HHD I OBUS I UBUS _ MCY I SBUS I - "MH Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail • 1.000000• 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.000000: 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.000000 1__-____1_______1_______1_______1_______1_______1_______1__-__-_-L_______1_______t _ _ - _ - _ . __H_______ r i r r r r UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No 7.0000001 0.000000I O.000OOOI O.000OOOI O.000OOOI O.000OOOI O.000OOOI O.000OOOI O.000OOOI O.000OOOr O.000OOOr 0.0000001 0.000000 i r i i i i i r r r r ... . _ P ail _. _ r. ._T__•_ _. .1 .ram _ r _ ... -: 0..57365: __ T T Y ..0008 _I. Other As halt Surraces 0.530593• 0.0415251 0.1778601 0.135G791 0.0227411 0.0061611 0.0162081 0.057365� 0.0013021 0.0018461 0.0065341 0.0008351 0.001351 ........................ _ - - - - . _ __t--------4---------H-------4-__----F--------F---------F-__---•-F------f•--------F---------F-_-_- • - - • - . . Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.530593• 0.041525: 0.1778601 0.135679: 0.0227411 0.0061611 0.0162081 0.0573651 0.0013021 0.0018461 0.0065341 0.000835: 0.001351 .......................y-------- g------- -4---._.__4-------- 4-------- 4____.__.4_._.____F-------- 4-------- I. -------- I. -------- I.------- 4____-•. Parking Lot ; 0.530593• 0.041525• 0.177860: 0.135679: 0.022741: 0.006161 • 0.016208• 0.057365: 0.001302: 0.001846: 0.006534: 0.000835: 0.001351 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 178 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/201712:20 PM ' - - NOG - NOx ,i - ''; " CO +. S02 _• Fugitive _ PM10 • -Exhaust ; • PM70 PM70 ,To}al Fugitive" PM2.5 ._. Exhaust PM? .. PM2.5 Total - .. el_o_-0O2' NBio-A02 Total _ C _ R4 " - - N20 CO2e Category.. -: =. - ;,', ]- _... .. lb/day .•.__ ,._ _ - Ib/day NaturalGas •' 0.0662 I 0.6018 I 0.5055 13.6100e- I i 0.0457 0.0457 I I M0457 I 0.0457 • ' 7222009 1722.2009 0.0138 I 0.0132 726.4926 Mitigated :i 1 1 I i 1 I 003 1 1 I i 1 I 1 1 I • r 1 i •I 1 ___________•r_____..r.......,......__r._____.r.______r_______________r._.._ I r I 1 • _� _ I_ _ _._. _ _ _ NaturalGas •• 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 ' 0.0138 0.0132 726.4926 Unmitigated 003 m rn rn 5.2 Energy by Land Use - Natura[Gas 00 Unmitigated to to A r NaturalGa --ROG,-' "` NOx 70- S02-,- ,.Eugitive -Exhaust"" - PM10 Fugitive Exhaust']_ PM2.5 File-0O2. NBio-0O2 Total CO2'. - CH4 - N20: CO2e Js Use . °'.. � ,. 1 .. PM10 PM10. '.. Total ,PM2.5 i �. PM2.5 Total - Land 'Use kBTU/yr . -' - ` - -- - - db/day - -- lb/day Other Asphalt I D •I 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 surfaces p I n 1 1 I _-......... F_ ______r_______ F_______r________ _______ Other Nan- I 0 •r 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � � 0.0000 I 0.0000 • � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 Asphalt Surfs n i u i I I i I i i I i i i i i • i i i i i ____..----s� _____•_______r__.____r------- r------ _r------- r------- r------- r _______r _______ r------- r___-_-_r_______ Parking Lot I 0 •r 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 • r 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I n -T r------r-------- Refrigeraatedced 150135013.86 r' 0.0541 0.4916 r 0.4129 i 2.9500e- 0.0374 r 0.0374 0.0374 ' 0.0374 589.8664 589.8664 0.0173 0.0108 ' 593.3717 Warehouse -No I 6 I 003 I Rail I t, i I i i Unrefrigerated 17124.84 r• 0.0121 � 0.1103 r 0.0926 1 6.6000e- � i 8.3600e- r 8.3800e- � � 8.3800e- ' 8.3800e- 1 � 1323345 1132.3345 � 2.5400e- 12.4300e- � 133.1209 Warehouse -No i i; i i i 004 i 003 i 003 j i 003 003 i i 003 003 it I y i I i I I r i i j Total 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0139 0.0732 726.4926 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 179 rn M 1 m 00 La W In In CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM ' NaturalGa ROG'- �NOx .CO, �i S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM70 fugitive, Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 'Total CO2 CH4, N20 CO2e s Use • -+ I ` PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 . PM2:5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr - - _ lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt 1 0 •+ 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 o.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 Surfaces 1 O n 1 , I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 . 1 I I . 1 1 I 1 I , I 1 I , Other Non- 1 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000' 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 t 0.0000 • I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces n I n I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 • I I I . I I 1 I 1 _ - I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 . I 1 1 I , Parkin Lot 1 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 u I I I I 1 u1 1 1 1 I 1 ---- _ _ _ _ _ __7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _�______�_9_�__�------- Refrigerated 15.01386 4 0.0541 I 0.4916 I 0.4129 12.9500e- I 1 0.0374 I 0.0374 1 1 0.0374 � O.W74 � � 589.8664 1589.8664 1 0.0113 1 OA108 593.3717 1 Warehouse -No 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rail 1 4 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Umefrigerated I 1.12484 +I 0.0121 1 0.1103 1 0.0926 1 6.6000e- I 1 8.3800e- 18.3800e- I 18.3800e- 8.3800e- 1 132.3345 1 132.3345 1 2.5400e- 12.4300e- 1133.1209 I Warehouse -No 1 i, 1 t, I I r 1 I I 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 I 1 003 003 1 1 } 1 1 003 1 1 003 I I Rail Total 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0139 0.0132 726.4926 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 180 m m 00 -o to Ln to rn CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM - - '1ROG - 'NOx "00' - -, S02. _ Fugitive: , PM70'! [Exhaust],-;PM10 'PM10 , , Total , Fugitive - PM2.5 TExhaust .' PM2.5.; PM2.5" Total'. Bio- CO2 NBib CO2 Total CO2. CH4 ' N20 1 _ CO2e - Category : ". - - _ " lb/day - , , ' ' - Wiley Mitigated •r 5.3919 1 6.1000e- r 0.0645 0.0000 r 2.3000e- i 23000e- i 2.3000a- r 2.3000e- • r 0.1357 r 0.1357 3.B000e- r 0.1451 1 004 1 1 i i r i i i r 004 i 004 I i 004 i 004 r • r i t i 004 t ' Unmitigated 5.3919 6.7000e- 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.6000e- 0.1451 004 004 004 004 004 004 6.2 Area by Subcategory " "^ROG -'NOz^ " '- CO_--[ `,.502 Fugitive ' '!'Exhaust" % "PM10 - 'Fugitive` j 'Exhaust PM25- ' Do- CO2' NBio- CO2.'Total CO2 `CH4 '• -N20. -' "- CO2e - ; PM10.- PM707 .. Tot PM25 ; PM2.5 - Total: - SubCategory- ; .` - - lb/day - - - - lb/day' Architectural 0.6200 r r 1 i l 0.0000 l 0.0000 l l 0.0000 I 0.0000 • r t 0.0000 l 1 r 0.0000 Coating r I r I i r I I :i r r t l r l l l • r 1 i • r r l r 1 r _ _______ _______r_______ ------- r------- r------- _ ------- r------- r------- r------- Consumer 4.7657 0.0000 1 l 0.0000 r 0.0000 • r t 0.0000 r r r 0.00000000 Products •i r 1 1 r i r I I 1 1 I I I • r t l • r r i t r Landscaping 6.2200e- 1 6.1000e. 1 0.0645 0.0000 i 2.3000e- 2.3000e. i 2.3000e- I 2.3000e- 0.1357 1 0.1357 3.80001. r 0.1451 .i 003 i 004 i r i l 004 004 l 004 004 • r r i 004 r •' r 1 • t t , Total 5.3919 6.1000e- 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.6000e- 0.1451 004 004 004 004 004 004 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 181 m I m 00 v (Cl w V CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by Subcategory Mitigated - - ROG' " NO x.' CO S02 ,Fugitive', Exhaust' PM10 .Fugitive Exhaust PM25. ° -Bio-COT NB, CO2 Total CO2 CH4 "'N20 : CO2e PM70 PM10. Total PM2.5 PM2:5- Total _ .Subcategory ;" - _ Ib/day Ib/day' ` Architectural•I 0.6200 I I I , 1 0.0000 1 0.c000 I 100000 , 0.0000 + r I 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 Coatin 9 .I I I + r I I I I .R I I I I 1 I I I + I I Consumer 4.7657 I I I I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I I 0.0000 l 0,0000 + r I 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 Products •I I 1 I _•RI I I I I I ____! .______P r_______r_______r_______r _______ g •I I 0.0000 I 12.3000e- 23000e- 2.3000e- Landsca in 6.2200e- 16.1000e- I 0.0645 , 2.3000e-+ I 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 .i 003 004 004 004 004 aoa I0.1357 I boa 1 Total 5.3919 6.1000e- 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 004 - 004 004 004 aoa 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day - Days/Year Horse4Power Load Factor -.Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 182 m M 1 m 00 v to w 00 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer Date: 5/18/2017 12:20 PM I Equipment Type '''Number Hours/Day- 'HoursNear. Horse:Power Load Factor Fuel Typp ` Boilers EguipmenCType " """ Num6er " Heat lriput/Day Heat'Inpiit/Year " 'Boiler Rating Fuel'Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 183 m rn I m eo w3 w W CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.1 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Page 1 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/201712:21 PM ,- - Land. Uses. -` I - - Size, I" - Metric. .I LobAcreage - f Floor Surface Area ,I -.. Population Refrigerated Warehouse No Rail 35.34- t000sgft 0.81 i 35,343.00 0 -_ ___________ .........._ _._--_-_--_--___ - - Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail 200.28 1000sgft i 4.60 i 200,277.00 0 r Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.10 Acre i 2.10 i 91,476.00 , 0 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 65.13 a 1000sgft 1.50 i 65,130.00 0 Parking Lot Lot 317.00 Space 2.85 126,800.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (Ms) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 184 m rn m ib v W w rn 0 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with information disclosed in IS. Land Use - Assumed 15 percent of warehouse land use would be refrigerated. Construction Phase - Operational Run Only. Off -road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Trips and VMT - Operational Run Only. Demolition - Grading - Architectural Coating - Reflects input parameters reflected in IS's air quality model. Vehicle Trips - Passenger Cars Only. Passenger cars make up 60% of entire vehicle trips. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Area Coating - Fleet Mix - Passenger Cars Only. Off -road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Energy Use - Table lblConstructionPhase NurnDays P41111r1 i@N] Date: 5/18/201712:21 PM ............................ --------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- tblFleetMix HHD 1 0.06 0.00 tblF)eetMix HHD 0.06 0.00 tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 ; 1.00 tblFleetMix LDA 11 0.53 ; 1.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 1 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix ; LDT1 1 0.04 i 0.00 ............. ..........:....•.•-----. -- --. tblFleetMix LDT2 11 0.18 0.00 .............................. .......... _.._........y------------ -. ---.......................... tblFleetMix _ LDT2 _ 0.18 _ 0.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 185 m Ol I m 00 'D w w rn CalEEMod Version: CalEEM0d.2O16.3.1 Page 3 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter tblFleetMix LHDt 0.02 0.00 ----------------------------- _y..____._..__------------ _____------------------------------ ______________________---- tblFleeiMix LHD1 0.02 0.00 tblFleeiMix LHD2 6.1610e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 6.1610e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY I 6.5340e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 6.5340e-003 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 1 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.00 ----------------------------------------------------------- -________-________-___________t_____________------ tblFleetMix MH 1.3510e-003 ; 0.00 r tblFleetMix MH 1.3510e-003 ; 0.00 ............................. .......... ------------- .f___________ _________-_ _-_______ _______._. tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 ; 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS I 1.3020e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS r 1.3020e-003 ' 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS r 8.3500e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 8.3500e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8460e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8460e-003 0.00 tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeel 35,340.00 1 35,343.00 tblLandUse Buildin S aces uareFeet 200,280.00 200,277.00 ..., y_.--________ _.-- _________ ________ ; __.___. ._._..-- tblLandUse LandUseS uareFeet 35,340.00 35,343.00 ............................. 4----------- }_____________________________.p..._____________________._ tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 200,280.00 200,277.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1 1.00 ; 0.00 ................._----------- �-----------•'•'-__._-•-----•------------------------------=-------------------------- -F tblOffRoadE ui ment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1 3.00 0.00 lblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 ; 0.00 tblPro'eclCharactedstics OperationalYear 2018 2017 ............................. _____ .___._...t.---.__.____ ___________ _ _________ .._..__._- tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 0.00 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 186 M rn I 00 tb V w w m N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 1 59.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips DV-TP 1 5.00 1 0.00 .............................. __________ ______.....F____-______ ___________ .......................... tblVehicleTri s DV_TP r 5.00 t 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTri s PB_TP 3.00 0.00 ._____._. .._.._•_ ._________ ___.__.... ;-___________ ___________ _..._.._ _.___._. tblVehicleTri s PR_TP 1 92.00 ; 100.00 .____.... ________ __________ ____._._.. ------------------------------ .......................... tblVehicleTri s I PR_TP 1 92.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.68 ; 1.04 .__...... _________ ............................. {.___________ ___________ ......--- ......._. tblVehicleTri s ST_TR 1.68 ; 1.04 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.68 1.04 11 IblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.68 1.04 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 1.04 .._...... ________ _________ ___.__.....r.______..._.. ._....___. _.._____. ._______. tblVehicleTri s WD_TR 1.68 1.04 2.0 Emissions Summary 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 187 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM " ROG"' '--NOa: CO' "502 Fugitive . Exhaust "PM10 'Fugitive .Exhaust- PM2.5 Bio-0O2' NBio=CO2 Total-0O2 'CH4 - N20- CO2e " - - -.., PM10 PM10 _ Total PM2.5:• PM2.5 'Total. Year .. _ ., lb/day lb/day ., 2017 •r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 't 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 I 0.0000 r 0.0000 I 0.0000 r 0.0000 a , Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 m rn I rn 00 v to w Mitigated Construction rn w 'R0_G """""NOx ; '`-0O` - ± ' 502 Fugitives", Exhaust- PM10 ',Fugitive =; Exhaust PM25r', •Bio "CO2"'NBio�CO2 ',Total CO2.1 � CH4 ", N20� "'� 'CO2e-: I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 1 Total"-�" '•' Year -"' -I61daY' - !Ib/day - 2017 •r 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 ; 0,0000 r 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 r 0.0000 i i •' ' Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 70000 0.0000 0.0000 ROG - aJNOz' -'CO'."" _s02 -fugitive Exhaust.' PM10 "'Fugitive 'Exhaust' 'PM2.5 ` Bio-CO2I'NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 ., Total, PM2.5 - 'PM2.5. Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 oxo 0.00 OAO 0.00 0.00 Reduction 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 188 M rn I 00 00 to w rn A CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG' ""NOR -':CO"_ "'S02` Hgitwe:-1 -Exhaust •"PM70 Fugitive i"Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-G02. NBio-0O2 Total CO2. CH4 N20. CO2e -I PM70 PM11 PM2.5 .. -Td[al. • Category b/day. ._ " - Ib/day Area •I 5.3919 16.1000e- 1 0.0645 I 0,0000 1 1 2.3000e- 12.3000e- 1 12.3000a- 1 2.3000e- r 1 0.1357 1 0.1357 1 3.8000e- 1 1 0.1451 .I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 .I I 004 1 I I I 004 1 004 I 1 004 004 004 1 , I _____ 1 t I I r I I Energy 0.0662 0.6018 1 0.5055 1 3.6100e- i 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0138 0.0132 i 726.4926 •� i I 1 1 003 I I I 1 1 1 ... .......... .I ------- r------- r_______r_______r------- r ------- r------- r------- r------- _ r_______r_______rI_______r1....... Mobile •1 0.4782 I 0.8358 1 8.9325 1 0.0271 1 3.0903 1 0.0171 I 3.1074 I 0.8192 I 0.0158 1 0.8350 2,696.65412,696.6541 0.0726 I 12,698.468 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 8 ' 1 1 1 1 Total S.9363 1.4382 9.5025 0.0307 3.0903 0.0631 3.1534 0.8192 0.0618 0.8810 3,418.990 3,418.990 0.0868 0.0132 3,425.106 s s 6 Mitigated Operational " -- ---"' .ROG" -. NO -, ,. -co: 'S02' :'Fugitive. Exhaust --PM10 Fugitive-" Exhaust' PM2.5 ` "Bio-0O2' NBIO-0O2 Tota(d02 CH4 -N20 .: CO2e" ' PM70 -'' PM10 Total , PM2.5 ,PM2:5 Total' - ' Category lb/day,s_ - - - - _ - ' llb/day Area •I 5.3919 16.'000e- 1 0.0645 1 0.0000 1 12.3000e- 12.3000e- 1 1 2.3000e- 1 2.3000e- 1 0.1357 1 0.7357 1 3.8000e- 1 I 0.1451 .I I 004 1 1 1 I 004 1 004 1 1 004 1 004 1 I 1 004 1 •1 _____________ 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 ------- r_____-_r_______r_______r------- r------- r------- r_______r------- 1 1 i r_______r_______r_______r. _...__ Energy 0.0662 0.6018 i 0.5055 i 3.6100e- 1 1 0,0457 1 0.0457 i 0.0457 i 0.0457 1722.2009 722.2009 0.0138 0.0132 726.4926 003 •I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 . I 1 I 1 Mobile •I 0.4782 1 0.8358 1 8.9325 1 0.0271 I 3.0903 I 0.0171 1 3.1074 1 0.8192 1 0.0158 1 0.8350 12,696.65412,696.6541 0.0726 1 12,698.468 1 1 3 I 3 I 1 I B •I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 . ' 1 1 1 ' Total 5.9363 1.4382 9.5025 0.0307 3.0903 0.0631 3.1534 0.8192 0.0618 0.8810 3,418.990 3,418.990 0.0868 0.0132 3,425,106 9 9 6 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 189 m m I 00 00 _0 W3 On On Ln CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM - ROG - NOx CO` 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 "Fugitive ! ('Exhaust PM2.5 ''13io-0O2 'NBio-CO2 Total•Co2 CH4 N20 -!CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2:5 PM2.5 Total - Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ,Phase Number. 1, Pha'se'Name 11- Phase Type - Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num'Days Phase. Description 1 :Demolition -Demolition :1/2/2017 :11212017 5. 1 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 6.45 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase'. Name.. - Offroad; Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition ;Concrete/Industrial Saws i 0; 8.00; 81 i 0.73 Demolition AExcavators t 0; 8.00i 1581 0.38 t Demolition • Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00: 247: 0.40 Trips and VMT 'Phase Name --- `O,ffroad Equipment 'Count Worker Trip Number, - Vendor Trip' Number Hauling Trip- Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip .Length lHaulingTrip Length Worker Vehicle Class. Vendor Vehicle Class I Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6: 0.00: 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90• 20.00•1-D_Mix HDT_Mix :HHDT 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 190 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM .FIOG NO, _'['..Co _ r S02" .Fugitive _ Exhaust ` PM10' ' Fugitive " -Exhaust" ' PM2.5 ' Me, CO2• NBio. CO2 'Total CO2]' CH4 ' 'N20• '":CO2e . 1. PM10" PM70• Total PM25 ". PM2.5 Total Category - -- - Ib/day, - - _ lb/day ' Fugitive Dust 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • r 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 n I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I i 1 1 1 I I 1 •I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I • _____ r 1 1 I � Off -Road •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • r 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 •1 •r I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I • 1 1 1 I • 1 1 1 I Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 O7 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .7 0.0000 0.0000 0.71 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ' ;.'ROG ";."NO) ,• CO.• -`S02 -f Fugitive ",Exhaust PM10 Fugitive- Exhaust-- PM2.5 Bio=CO2 N..a-0O2 'Total CO2: £H4 N20: -1 CO2a _ . PM70 PM70, .Total PM2:5 PM2.5 Total. _ - Category - _- _ - tb/day lb/day... Hauling •1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 •1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 i I . 1 1 I 1 •-..r ------- Ventlar 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • omoo 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 • I I 1 , __-.._..__.•_--------------- .r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ------- r------- r------- r ------- r------- r------- r------ _ 1 1 1 r r_______ worker •r o.00ao 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • o.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 o.oaoo 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 • i I 1 1 I 1 1 , Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.ollo0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 191 m rn I 00 00 _V v to w rn V CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Date: 5/18/201712:21 PM - -ROG^ ""NOx `CO";'.'S02" I -Fugitive-'.:Fhaust-. "PM10` Fugitive[- ,Exhaust' 'PM2.5 'Bio-0O2='NRio-0O2 Total.0O2- CH4, N20. CO2e'. __. -- PM10 PM10 - Total I PM2.5 - PM2:5, ; Total "Category x. .. -.. .. .� .. ".-; "lb/day.._ Ib/day. - Fugitive Dusl 0.0000 Uwe 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I 1 ...� Olf-Road •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.00DD 1 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 .1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I Total 0.0000-0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off -Site - .ROGS ` NOx.�� CO Fugitive -.j Fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 ' Bio- CO2,: Naio= CO2 Total CO2 -, CH4. N20 ' Cg2e'- 1 '�..'S02'.''FPMt10 PM70t '-Total'^Total' -- ._ .' ..:Category -- __ ...- .. .. - .. Ib/daY_ _. -IbPoay.- Hauling F 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 . 0.0000 •1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I _______...�-______ Vendor •1 0.0000 I 0:0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I O.000D I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 I I I I I I I I 1 Worker •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0,0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 I 0,0000 1 0.0000 I . 0.0000 1 ' Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 192 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile - ROG NOx ':CO 502 'Fugitive PM 10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 'Bio-CO2 NBio-.CO2 Toiaf CO2 -CH4 I N20 `CO2e Category " ' lo/day, ' Jb/day " Mitigated ' 0.4782 1 0.8358 1 8.9325 1 0.0271 i 3.0903 1 0,0171 3,1074 i 0.8192 1 0.0158 I 0.8350 • ' 2,696.654 i 2.696.654 1 0.0728 1 • 2,698.468 a a 1 1 1 i i i 1 i I I • 1 • 3 i 3 i e ---------- ------- t .._. ! . ..... 1 1 • Unmitigated 0.4782 0.8358 8.9325 0.0271 3.0903 0.0171 3.1074 0.8192 0.0158 0.8350 • 2,696.654 • 2,696.654 • 0.0726 • 2,698.468 3 3 8 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily TripRate. _ Unmitigated. _ _Mitigated Land USE - Weekday Safurday Sunday Annual VMT ArinualVMT Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 .................................................... i ___________t....._...__ :________________-._--_ -________-___________---__ Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 • •.: _______-__-_i _---_____4._ ____.......... _------------- ___________________________ Parking Lot ; 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 ..........9........................................i --------- __ __________--- ----...----________-_-.y_____________-____________ Refri erated Warehouse -No Rail 36.75 t 36.75 36.75 ; 222,080 ; 222,080 ,........,,9........................................ ________-__T...._.__....,......._.______.........,. ----------- _---___________ Unrefri erated Warehouse -No Rail ' 208.29 1 208.29 ' 208.29 1,258,579 1,258,579 Total 245.04 245.04 245.04 1,480,659 1,480,659 4.3 Trip Type Information 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 193 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/201712:21 PM Miles -- Trip,/ Trip Purpose Land Use. : H_-W;or.C-W. H-Sor.C-C H-O:orC-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C ;H-O or C-NW _ Primary Diverted Pass -by _ Other Asphalt Surfaces i 16.60 8.40---' 6.90 ; 0.00-- i 0.00 r 0.00 0 ; 0 0 ........................___--__-_- ____- - ....-- i 1........... ............:.________.:___.............. Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces i 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 ............9 .......... -------------------------------------- --i'......... r...... " -' ------------- -- •--------------- 0 Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 r 0.00 _ 0 0 .......................Y- - ---� 1 ......... Refrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 6.90 ; 100.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 100 0 ; 0 ..........:::..........:........ -.__-.__-..---_---- -..--._.__I......___ ;_.__.._____�_________.. I .......... ....... ______ Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 O.OD 100 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land. Use LDA .LDTt `_; LDT2 :MDV 71 Ll �-LHD2-' -.MHD I HHD j OBUS � UBUS I MCY SBUS - MH Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail • 1.000000• 0.000000: 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.000000: 0.000000: 0.000000: 0.0000001 0.000000i 0.000000 ........ i--------- ------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 1_______- _ _ _ _ _-. Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No 1.0000001 0.000000: 0.000OoD! 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 O.0000001 0.00o000i 0.000000i O.o000001 0.0000001 0.000000 Rail r I i i r i i ' i i r ____- _._J r ___-4......... Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.530593• 0.041525: 0.177860: 0.135679: 0.0227411 0.006161; 0.016208: 0.057365: 0.0013020.0018461 0.0065341 0.000835: 0.001351 ........................ y........ y--------- F_______-F------- -_______........ Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.530593• 0.041525: 0.1778601 0.1356791 0.0227411 0.006161 � 0.016208: 0.0573651 0.001302; 0.0018461 0.0065341 0.000835: 0.001351 _______________________ y-------- F-------- F-------- F-------- f......... ]. -_-_.4__--_-__I._______._J.________f._____-_-E_---.-. ;_--_---- ParkingLot 0.530593• 0.041525: 0.177860: 0.135679: 0.022741: 0.006161• 0.016208: 0.057365• 0.001302• 0.00184G• 0.006534• 0.000835• 0.001351 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 194 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter - - -- �ROG - _. _.. NOx '" - - CO' -'I + ,, r 502 'Fugitive. • "Exhaust - PM70 PM70 - Total Fugitive PM25 . Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio-0O2 _NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 - N20 CO2e Category .: ^-` - •. `_..- Ib/days"' _ .. _ .. lb/day.. NaturalGas 0.0662 1 0.6018 1 0.5055 1 3.6100e- 1 1 0.0457 1 0.0457 I 1 0.0457 I 0.0457 1 722.2009 1722.2009 722.2009 1 0.0138 1 0.0132 1 726.4926 •1 Mitigated .I I I I 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 � • , I • , 1 I I I n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ • _, _I _I _ 1_ NaturalGas •• 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0,0457 0.0457 0.0457 0,0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0138 0.0132 726.4926 Unmitigated 003 m rn m 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas 03 t- Unmitigated w V O - NaturelGa -'ROG `; NOx -:.,90-- S02 -.-Fugitive Exhaust"'' PM70 Fugitive' Exhaust :-'PM2.5 '. 8io-0O2 NBio-0O2?olal CO2' _CH4.-,. N20 :=,CO2e-` r ;a',Use :' 1 • -PM10. i ; Total PM2:5. PM2.5 Total I i -" IandUse "kBTUNr - -' - - - - - Ib/day ' "" "' - ! -, - _ lb/day' - Other Asphalt 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0,0000 1 0.0000 •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 SaAaCES 1 u I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 n I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 • , I 1 1 I 1 1 1 u I 1 1 I 1 I I I • I i I Other Non- 1 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 • 1 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces 1 II I 1 1 I 1 I I I I • u I I I I • , I 1 , 1 1 1 I ; I II I 1 1 1----- I I I • , 1 1 1 Parking Lol 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 u I 1 1 I 1 I I I I • 1 II I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I T------- 1 I I 1 I 'frigeraleduse-N 5013.86 0.0541 1 0.4916 1 0.4129 1 29500e- 1 1 0.0374 1 0.0374 1 1 0.0374 0.0374 1 589.8664 1 589.8664 1 0.0113 1 0.0108 593.3717 areh------- Warehouse -No 1 t, 1 1 A. 1 1 1 003 Rail - - - - - • - __-F------t" - - - - - r e 1 1124.84 Ir 0.0121 1 0.1103 I 0.0926 1 6.6000e- 1 1 8.3800e- 1 8.3800e- 1 1 8.3800e- ' 8.3800e- r 3 8.3800--F-------F--- OOe.3345 1"--345 2.5 , 132.3345 11323345 12.5400e- 1 24300e- 133.7209 . Warehouse -No Warehouse -No 1 L 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 I I 003 1 1 003 ; Rall I I, 1 r r 1 I 1 1 1 T 1 I I , Total 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2009 0.0139 0.0132 726.4926 11 003 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 195 m rn I m 00 '1] l� W CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 16 Date: 5118/2017 12:21 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated - - NaturalGa ROG-' NO. CO S02 ,Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust P102.8- Bio-0O2. NBis- CO2 7otat'CO2 CH4 N20 G02e 'gUse _ _ PM10 PM10 I Total 'P102.5 PM2:5 Total - Land.Use kBTUtyr - today lb/day - Other Asphalt 1 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 t 0.0000 , 0.0000 r o.000o r 0.000D 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ., 1 i i Surfaces i n i i r i i 1 r i I • , i i , u 1 i r i i r i i _ • , i i i r_-___-_r_______r_______r _______r_______r _______ r------- r------- r------- r------- Other Non- 1 0 ^ 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0,0000 1 0.0000 0,0000 r 0,0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 n r i r r • , 1 r i Asphalt Surfaces u 1 i r 1 i t i i j • . 1 1 1 u 1 i r i �______ �_______� _ • , r r i i ._.-._9 _____--_______�_______,._______r_______r_______r______ r__-_-__ r_______r_______r_______r _____.. Parkin Lot 1 0 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 r 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 � O.000D 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 . 0.0000 1 n 1 1 i r r i i i 1 . , t r 1 1 u r 1 i r i r i i 1 • , 1 r i n r I r 1 _�______ r i i • ........... F .. _ . _..r._______r________r_______r--______-•______ _r_____.._r.___.-___.r_______I. __ _ _ _ _ _l _ _ _ _ _ __r_______•_______r..-_V._r__.0.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ Refrigerated 5.01386 0.0541 r 0.4916 0.4729 i 2.9500e- r i 0.0374 0.0374 1 1 0.0374 0.0374 589.8664 r 569.8664 r 0.0113 r 0.0108 • 593.3717 +' r 00Warehouse-No I +, r r i 3 Rail Un,atrigerated 1.12484 +� 0.0121 r 0.1103 r 0.0926 i 6.6000e- r r 8.38DOe- 8.3800e- r r 6.3800e- 8.3800e- 132.3345 r 132.3345 r 2.5400e- r 2.4300a 133.1209 i L r r i , 1 , r , , r , , Warehouse -No r +, , r i 004 r r 003 , 003 r r 003 003 f r r 003 , 003 , Rail Total 0.0662 0.6018 0.5055 3.6100e- 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 0.0457 722.2009 722.2000 0.0139 0.0132 726.4926 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 196 m rn m 00 v to w V N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 16 Date: 5/18/201712:21 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter - - - ".ROG.' I NOx `CO- 502. Fugitive. - "- Exhaust - PM10 "'PM10 'j Total "'Fugitive'% PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 -PM2.5 Total. BI0-CO2.. NBIO-0O2 Total,CO2i'. "CH4 N20 " I CO20 "I i Category'-. - _ - - "lb/day - - - - - - Ib/day' Mitigated 5.3919 r 6.1000e- I 0.0645 r 0.0000 r 2.3000e- r 2.3000e- I r 2.3000e- I 2.3000e- r 0.1357 r 0.1357 r 3.80000- r 0.1451 i 004 i i i i 004 i 004 r I r 004 • i 004 r r r r. r 004 r a r ...._.___.______.,_..____•_._.._..._.........__.........F......_._...._.._..._.�_._____�.._.___. ............ ................ . r I 1 i __.___.; ....... Unmitigated 5.3919 6.1000e. 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 2-3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e. 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 004 004 004 004 004 004 6.2 Area by Subcategory Unmityated - _ - 'ROG. '".CO, S02. ', Fugitive" Exhaust ," PM10_' "Fugitive i Exhaust PM2.5 . BIo=CO2,' _NBio-0O2 Tctaf:CO2' -'CH4 "N20 '- CO2e ,NOxI PM70. , PM10 Total PM25 - PM2.5 Total Subcategory' -- - --" - 'Ililday" - - - - - lb/day- - Architectural 0.6200 I 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 • • 0.0000 1 r 0.0000 Coating .r i r I I I r I I , I r I • __.T_ r t r r r r r I _ � r I t I r_______r_______r ------- c------- r------- r--- ____r------- r_ F_ r------ _c_....__ Consumer •r 4.7657 0.0000 r 0.0000 r I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products r t r r I r r Landscaping 6.2200e- 6.1000e- t 0.0645 1 0.0000 1 i 2.3000e- 12.3000e- I 12.3000e- I 2.3000e- 0.1357 i 0.1357 i 3.8000e- i 0.1451 .i 003 r 004 I r t I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 r i r 004 I i Total 5.3919 6.1000e. 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 004 004 004 004 004 004 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 197 rn rn I 00 00 -0 v to w V W CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 16 Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by Subcategory Mitigated ROG, NOx CO S02' Fugitive' ' Exhaust ` PM10 - Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2' NBio- CO2 Total CO2" ¢Ha 'N20 CO2e PM70 PM10. TO PM2.5-,; PM2.5 Total I I I Subcategory - " - lb/day lb/day Architectural •1 0.6200 I I 1 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Coating 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ._______--_______I ______rI______ � I I I I I _______I _______ I I I onsumer 4.7657 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products I I t I I I I 1 I I I I _•R______ - I I I Landscaping 6.2200e- I 6.1000e- 1 0.0645 1 0.0000 1 1 2.3000e- 1 23000e- 2.3000e- I 2.3000e- I 0.1357 0.1357 1 3.8000e- 1 1 0.1451 .I 003 I 004 1 1 I 1 004 I 004 I 1 004 I 004 r i 1 I 004 1 .I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 Total 5.3919 6.1000e- 0.0645 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.3090e- 2.3000e- 0.1357 0.1357 3.8000e- 0.1451 004 004 o9a 004 1 1 1 004 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Off road ".Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horsepower j Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 198 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 16 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga - San Bernardino -South Coast County, Winter Date: 5/18/2017 12:21 PM Equipment Type Number • 'Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment EquipmentType '- ""Number 11.0 Vegetation 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. A -Page 199 From: Edwards, Jennifer@Wildlife rmailto:lennifer.Edwardsowildlife.ca.aov1 Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:44 PM To: Ressler, Michael Cc: Fluharty, Marilyn@Wildlife Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Resort at Los Coyotes, Buena Park, CA (SCH#2013031081) Dear Mr. Michael Ressler, The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced Los Coyotes Country Club Development Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), received by the Department on October 3, 2014. The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as a Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA] Guidelines §15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. In order to ensure the project is consistent with ongoing regional habitat conservation planning efforts, and to assist the City of Buena Park (City) in avoiding, minimizing, and adequately mitigating project -related impacts to biological resources, we offer the following comments and recommendations. The Department recommends that measures be taken to avoid project impacts to nesting birds. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) of 1918 (Title 50, § 10.13, Code of Federal Regulations). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). Proposed project activities (including, but not limited to, staging and disturbances to native and nonnative vegetation, structures, and substrates) should occur outside of the avian breeding season which generally runs from February 1- September 1 (as early as January 1 for some raptors) to avoid take of birds or their eggs. If avoidance of the avian breeding season is not feasible, the Department recommends surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys to detect protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting habitat that is to be disturbed and (as access to adjacent areas allows) any other such habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance area (within 500 feet for raptors). If an active nest is identified, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors), be delineated by temporary fencing, and remain in effect as long as construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer active. Project personnel, including all contractors working on site, should be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. The mitigation language provided in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1. partially addresses impact concerns for resident, migratory, and other bird species (e.g., raptors). However, this measure calls for biologist surveys up to two weeks prior to tree removal during the avian nesting season. To ensure no direct and indirect impacts to active avian nests the Department recommends the following: 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. B-Page 200 E6—E8 Pg375 a. construction activities, (including vegetation clearing and grubbing) within or adjacent to avian nesting habitat should occur outside of the avian breeding season to avoid take of birds or their eggs. b. If avoidance of the avian breeding season is not feasible (as defined above), the Department recommends that beginning 30 days prior to the initiation of project activities, a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys shall conduct weekly bird surveys to detect protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting habitat that is to be disturbed. As access to adjacent areas allows, any other such habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance area (within 500 feet for raptors) should also be surveyed. The surveys should continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of project activities. If an active nest is located, project activities within 300 feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor nests) must be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Flagging, stakes, and/or construction fencing should be used to demarcate the inside boundary of the buffer of 300 feet (or 500 feet) between the project activities and the nest. Project personnel, including all contractors working on site, should be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. The project proponent should provide the City with results of the recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. c. If the biological monitor determines that a narrower buffer between the project activities and observed active nests is warranted, he/she should submit a written explanation as to why (e.g., species -specific information; ambient condition and birds' habituation to them; and the terrain, vegetation, and birds' line of sight between the project activities and the nest and foraging areas) to the City and, upon request, the Department. Based on the submitted information, the City (and the Department, if the Department requests) will determine whether to allow a narrower buffer. d. The biological monitor shall be present on site during all grubbing and clearing of vegetation to ensure that these activities remain within the project footprint (i.e., outside the demarcated buffer), that the flagging/stakes/fencing is being maintained, and to minimize the likelihood that active nests are abandoned or fail due to project activities. The biological monitor shall send weekly monitoring reports to the City during the grubbing and clearing of vegetation, and shall notify the City immediately if project activities damage active avian nests. Further avoidance of direct impacts to birds, particularly migratory species, can be achieved through incorporation of 'bird safe' elements in architectural design. Elements such as glazed windows, well -articulated building facades, and minimal nighttime lighting are encouraged to reduce collisions of migratory birds with buildings. Large flat windows, reflective glass, and transparent corners are strongly discouraged. The Department recommends that the City follow as many of these guidelines as appropriate when considering structure design, as described in San Francisco's Standards for Bird Safe Buildings (the document can be found online at http://sfplanning.org/index.aspx?page=2506). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DER for this project and to assist the City in further minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources. If you have any 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. B-Page 201 E6—E8 Pg376 questions or comments regarding this letter please contact Jennifer Edwards at (858)467-2717 or via email at Jennifer.Edwards@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Jennifer Edwards Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858)467-2717 Jennifer. Edwards@wildlife.ca.aov 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. B-Page 202 E6—E8 Pg377 City of Riverside Section 2 Sycamore Canyon Business Park Buildings 1 and 2 FEIR Comments Received and Responses to Comments Comment Letter 13 - Ric Wade 13 Brenes, Patricia From: do wade <waderic1028Qatt.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:07 PM To: Brenes, Patricia Subject [Fxtemal] Comments Re: Sycamore Canyon Business Park Buildings 1 and 2 September 21, 2016 13-A My property, 6058 Cannich Road, Riverside, is directly impacted by noises that will come from the 1.3 million square foot warehouses proposed to be constructed. Contrary to the noise studies noted In the DEIR, no comments were stated regarding sound and ground vibration that occurs from semi -trailers being dropped to the surface from the trailer forklifts. When winds come from the south or east, this noise increases substantially to our property. Another observation during my morning walks in the Sycamore trails, I am seeing semi trucks now 13-B coming down Lochmoor street as a means of avoiding the congestion of cars and trucks on Sycamore Canyon road and Eastddge as well as the gridlock each morning on the 215S and 60E connectors. Rick Wade 6058 Cannich Road Albert A. R= Associates FEIR 2.13-1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. C-Page 203 E6—E8 Pg378 City of Riverside Section 2 Sycamore Canyon Business Park Buildings 1 and 2 FEIR Comments Received and Responses to Comments Comment Letter 11 - Maureen Clemens Community & Economic Development Department 05A4 THE PLANNING COMMISSION 3900 Main Street RECEIVED Riverside, CA 92 Re: Sycamore Canyon Business Park Building I and 2 Dev� rr�rem oe "0`"to THE ENTIRE PLANNING COMMISSION: (who ever you may �7 PerbTlint I am enclosing a Location Map for you to study and 1 mean STUDY so you can see how many homes are impacted by the number of existing warehouses. You can wake up at 4:30 AM and if your windows are open you will hear the hum and beep, beep of Semi Tractor Trailer Trucks. You don't have to be directly in back of these warehouses you can be as far away as Lochmoor close So Central Avenue, sound really cares up here. This map does not show the warehouse that is closely and I mean closely behind the homes on Stockport. If you have a two story home on Stockport you will be looking at a giant wall from your second story, which is usually your master bedroom. If you go out in the early morning or mid -day or evening on Sycamore Canyon Blvd. you will encounter at least eight trucks in a one block area. These cocks were meant to enter and exit atEastridge. They do not, they constantly enter and exit the Fair Ts ,,Box Spring exit and entrance and have been known to go as far as CentrMo enter the 60 freeway. 1 advise you to have a look, a good look at the Good Neighbor Guidelines adopted by the city on October 10, 2008. Also you might want to review the City's Mission Statement: The City of Riverside is committed to providing high quality municipal services to ensure a safe, inclusive and I i % able community. Sincerely, 'Matu'eeUnG emense�/%� 6012 Abernathy Dr. Riverside, CA 92507 a10 tC RECEIVED SEP 16 2016 community & Ecmon4c Development Department Albert A. ® Associates F Ei H 2.11 - t 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. C-Page 204 E6—E8 Pg379 City of Riverside Section 2 Sycamore Canyon Business Park Buildings 1 and 2 FOR Comments Received and Responses to Comments Comment Letter 14 - Alec Gerry 14 Brenes, Patricia From: Alec Gerry <alecq@ucr.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 2L 2026 U26 PM To: Brenes, Patricia; sycamorehighlands®yahoo.com Subject Ptemal] Mega warehouses proposed for Sycamore Canyon Business Park City of Riverside Community Development Department Planning Division Attn: Patricia Brines, Principal Planner, obrencsrdriversidecn.eov Ms. Brenes, I am writing this email in response to the draft EIR for the two proposed warehouses in the Sycamore Canyon I.I.A Business Park (Buildings I & 2, SCI4 No. 2015081042). My family already suffers from warehouse noise, particularly in the nighttime and very early morning hours (2am-6am is the worstl). Vet the nearest warehouse to me (Big 5) is approximately 2,000 feet away from my home. Much of the early morning noise comes from the Ralphs facility which is over 2,700 feet from my home. Sound travels very far in the canyon and into the residential homes due to the geography of the area. The acoustics of this area were not well modeled in the EIR - in fact the noise monitoring in the EIR was frankly a joke with sound not measured at locations where and during environmental conditions when noise would be expected to be most severe.1 can tell you that warehouse noises are much greater on cloudy nights, high humidity nights, and nights when the wind blows toward the north. These were not the conditions when noise was monitored. If my children, my wife, and I are already awakened many nights by warehouse noise (backup alarms and truck homs) when warehouses are over 2,000 feet away, it can only be anticipated that noise will be much worse if the new MEGA warehouses are built just 700 or so feel away from my home. And I cannot even imagine the torture of being one of the closest homes to the Business Parkl! 1 want to also state that the traffic patterns mentioned in the draft EIR are inaccurate. Many trucks travel north I , t on Sycamore Canyon Blvd from the warehouses (notjust the 50h modeled). Also, many of the warehouses in the area currently vacant so their truck traffic is not included in any traffic analysis, but when these warehouses are filled, teh number of truck visits per day will be well more than what is modeled in the EIR. We already have very heavy traffic on Sycamore Canyon Blvd and the Box Springs entrance and exit from the 60 freeway. This will only be worse if the two proposed warehouses are constructed. In fact, trucks already are coming into our community looking for short cuts around the traf c jams on Sycamore Canyon Blvd. Albert A. ® Associates FEIR 2.14-1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. C-Page 206 E6-E8 Pg381 City of Riverside Section 2 Sycamore Canyon Business Park Buildings 1 and 2 FEIR Comments Received and Responses to Comments Comment Letter 20 - John and Teresa Denham 20 Brenes, Patricia from: Teresa Denham <taddenham@ W.com> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:43 AM To: Brenes, Patricia Subject: (ExternaU Draft EIR City of Riverside Community Development Department Planning Division Ms. Be nes, I am writing this email in response to the draft EIR for the two proposed warehouses in the Sycamore Canyon Business Park (Buildings 1 & 2, SCH No. 2015081042) Since 1999 when we purchased our home in the Sycamore Highlands Community we have heard noises rom the Kroger and Pepsi warehouses that keep us awake at night and this has only Increased since adding additional warehouses. The distance Is 1 mile from my home to those f. The acoustics in the canyon Is allowing us to hear this noise. Traffic has also Increased on Sycamore Carryon and Fair isle with trucks from these warehouse using the on ramp at Box Springs/Fair Isle to avoid traffic on the 21S. lust recently I counted 10 trucks coming down Sycamore Canyon to Fair Isle. it Is Just too much traffic, too much pollution! The Developer drawings appear to represent the view form one of the westernmost homes on Sutherland which would be least Impacted by warehouse height rather than representing homes on the eastern side of Sutherland which will be moat hnpacltd aesthetically by the height difference between the home and warehouse. The draft EIR prepared by Albert WEBB Associates did not adequately address my concerns described above. I believe that the draft EIR should be rewritten and alternate strategies &including NO Development) should be considered. Sincerely, John & Teresa Denham 1347 Sutherland Drive Riverside, CA 92507 Sent from Mail for Windows 1D Albert A. ® Associates FEIR 2.20-1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. C-Page 207 E6—E8 Pg382 City of Riverside Section 2 Sycamore Canyon Business Park Buildings 1 and 2 FEIR Comments Received and Responses to Comments Comment Letter 24 - Roberto Passoni !A Brenes, Patricia From: robenopassoniOsbcglobal.net Sent: Thursday, September 22, 20161f1.t S PM T. Drenn, Petride Cc: Alec Garry, Alec Gerry Subject: 111damall Sycamore Canyon warehouses City of Riverside September 21. 2016 Community Development Department Planning Division Alm. Patricia Brenes, Principal Pl;mner,obrencs@riversideca.vov Ms. Brenes, 1 am writing this email in response to the draft EIR for the two proposed warehouses in the Sycamore Canyon Business Park (Buildings 1 & 2, SCH No. 2015081042). Tie following paragraphs describe. some of my serious concerns in regards to the proposed warehouses. 1. My personal experience in regards to the high-level of noise that occurs every night and throtighout the - t night. My address is 6071 Bannock Drive and my house faces Sycamore Canyon Park with the Ralph distribution center 800 yards away. In to past few years, it appears that there has been a significant Increase in noise level. especially during the night -lime hours from the industrial warehouses, including both the pre-existing warehouses and the new industrial warehouses built in the past decade. Every night we arc awoken by de noise of trucks driving around, forklifis and/or other loadinglunloadinii machines working throughout the night, and even more pronounced is the noise that these machineries produce, which is a continuous very loud and sharp' Beep -Beep" sound. This noise goes an throughout the night from about 7 in the evening to 7In to morning. Most importantly, this noise is impacting mine and other's quality of sleep dramatically. We have tried to block the noise out by closing our windows, wearing earplugs, using a while -noise machine, and many more alternatives. Yet, none of these techniques have been successful at reducing the noise. If lucky. I and others in my family are able to gel a total of 4 hours of sleep per night because of all the noise .,4 that the warehouses create. As a result of the noise and lack ofsleep our functionality and abliily to remain attentive at work or ru school is significantly impaired. Likewise, our relationships with others are also compromised because our irritability increases due to the lack of sleep. This should come as no surprise us a wealth of research has demonstrated how lack of sleep is positively correlated to a poorer quality of life. This serious issue Is not only common to my family, but it is a shared experience by many other individuals in _ the neighborhood. We have made many complaints to city of Riverside with the hopes that they will listen to our concerns, however we hove yet to hear a constructive response. When w11I our voices- be heard regarding thcc severity of damage that these warehouses are causing to a pan of Riverside's community? In addition, how is it conceivable that the city of Riverside is in the process of approving additional warehouses, which also happens to be placed in a closer location? 2. The unappealing aesthetic associated with the architectural design. z4-E Albert A. ® Associates FEIR 2.24-1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. C-Page 208 E6-E8 Pg383 City of Riverside Section 2 Sycamore Canyon Business Park Buildings 1 and 2 FOR Comments Received and Responses to Comments Comment Letter 27 - Thomas Ruiz 27 Brenes, Patricia From: Thomas Ruiz <TtomasLituiz0hotmaitcom> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 9:26 AM To: Brenes, Patricia Subject: (External] Sycamore Canyon Business Park (Buildings 1 & 2. SCH No. 2015081042) Ms. Brenes, I am writing this email in response to the draft EIR for the two proposed warehouses in the Sycamore Canyon Business Park (Buildings 1 & 2, SCH No. 2015081042). 1 live at 1358 Sutherland Drive, Riverside, CA. Very close to the (2) proposed Mega Warehouse projects. I am a first time homeowner and recently bought in this neighborhood for the beautiful views and quiet environment. After a few months of living here, I experienced noise from back-up signals coming from the existing warehouse in the early AM from terminal tractors. With that being said, my family's house is considerably further away from those warehouses compared to the proposed warehouses, which would be less than a football field length away. This is cause for grave concern for noise pollution, in which the EIR shows that the tests were taken in non -peak hours and after the holiday season. In our community we have quite a few young children that play outside, including my son. If this project is to be constructed I fear that they can face health risk with the excessive increase of trucks traveling through our community and at the proposed warehouse location. I fear that the owner of the warehouse will not be able enforce any regulation on their tenants or of their sub -contractors that will deliver or pick up from this warehouse in the use of a clean air vehicle. I would propose that any such contract be approved by the city council to Insure the residence that proper mitigation measures would be followed. Also, we have a great number of trucks that either congests the roadways or parked illegally on Sycamore Canyon waiting for pick-ups or delivery. We fear that this problem will only increase do the sure size of this proposed project. I fear that in the future, the bottle neck of 215/60 Interchange will cause heavier traffic. Commutes to and from work will be longer which will result in spending less time with our families. This can also cause our community to be a less desirable place to live and possibly lowering the communities home values. I truly believe that this project is not property sited for the size. Therefore, we fear that any mitigation measures taken wouldn't be enough without affecting the quality of fife of the current residence. The draft EIR prepared by Albert WEBB Associates did not adequately address my concerns described above. I believe that the draft EIR should be rewritten and alternate mitigation strategies (including NO development) should be considered. Sincerely, Thomas Ruiz 1358 Sutherland Dr. Riverside, CA Albert A. KW.]Associates FEIR 2.27-1 5/22/2017 GSESJA Comment Letter -Attach. C-Page 209 E6-E8 Pg384 ®South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91 765-41 78 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA USPS AND E-MAIL: May 24, 2017 dominick.perez(a1citvofrc.us Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Design Review DRC2016-00670, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final MND. Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to construct and operate a 232,058-square-foot, high -cube warehouse with unknown occupants on an approximately 11.84-acre site ("project"). The project is bounded by commercial uses to the north and east, residential dwellings to the south, and a vacant commercial lot to the west. The residential dwellings are within '/4 mile of the project. Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Analyses The MND estimates approximately 396 total vehicle trips, including approximately 151 daily diesel truck trips. In the Air Quality Section, the Lead Agency quantified the proposed project's construction and operation air quality impacts and compared those impacts with SCAQMD's regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. The Lead Agency found that regional and localized construction and operational emissions would be less than significant. Additionally, the Lead Agency performed an HRA and found that "all offsite diesel emissions concentrations were [... ] below the 10.0 in a million cancer risk threshold [...] for all age groups examined" (see Page Rev 3-1-16 of the MND). SCAQMD staff has concerns about the health risk analysis in the MND. The HRA analysis performed for this project was based on improper assumptions which has likely underestimated the project's health risk impacts. Additionally, SCAQMD staff finds that the MND is not clear with respect to meteorological data that was used in the air quality analysis. Details are included in the attachment. The attachment also includes a list of recommended mitigation measures which the Lead Agency should implement and include in the Final MND, if the revised health risks from the project are found to be significant. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide SCAQMD staff with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address the issues raised in the letter and any other air quality and HRA EXHIBIT S E6—E8 Pg385 Dominick Perez May 24, 2017 questions that may arise. Please contact Jack Cheng, Air Quality Specialist — CEQA IGR Section, at (909) 396-2448, if you have any questions regarding these comments. Attachment JN:LS:JC SBC170425-07 Control Number Sincerely, -C6;x t scut Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources E6-E8 Pg386 Dominick Perez 3 May 24, 2017 ATTACHMENT Air Ouality and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Analyses 1. SCAQMD staff is concerned that the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) has likely underestimated the cancer risk from the project. In the HRA, the Lead Agency used the AERMOD dispersion model to estimate DPM concentrations from the diesel vehicles generated by the project and used the 2015 revised OEHHA guidelines to estimate the health risks to sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the HRA based on the following comments. a. In the HRA, the Lead Agency used a 70-year average DPM emissions rate for the 30 years of exposure to estimate health risks. This is not an appropriate methodology to estimate emissions based on the 2015 revised OEHHA guidelines. The 2015 revised OEHHA guidelines acknowledge that children are more susceptible to the exposures to air toxics and have revised the way cancer risks are estimated to take this into account. Since the emissions from the project -generated trucks get cleaner with time due to existing regulations, it would not he appropriate to average out the emissions over a 70-year exposure duration since this would underestimate the health risks to children who would be exposed to higher DPM concentrations during the early years of project operation. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the DPM emissions for each year of operation be applied to each of the corresponding age bins (i.e. emissions from Year I of project operation should be used to estimate cancer risks to the third trimester to 0 year age bin; Year 1 and 2 of project operation should be used to estimate the cancer risks to the 0 to 2 years age bins; and so on). b. Dock loading idling emissions were modeled as individual point sources at four idling locations along the planned loading docks (STCKI — 4). SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the HRA using a line volume source that spans the entire dock area to ensure that impacts are properly analyzed. c. Some of the receptors were placed within the volume source exclusion zone, and the results at these locations might not be accurate. This has likely caused the risk results for these receptors not be captured. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the HRA by using a greater number of smaller volume sources to avoid receptors within the volume source exclusion zone. d. The Lead Agency performed the HRA modeling on July 17, 2016 using EMFAC2011 to calculate emission factors. EMFAC2014 is the most recent available version (approved on December 30, 2014) and was available at the time of analysis. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use EMFAC2014 when revising the HRA. EMFAC2014. Available at: httos:H/w .arb.ca.aov/emfoc/2014/. E6—E8 Pg387 Dominick Perez 4 May 24, 2017 2. Based on a review of Section 8.3.3 Meteorological Data of the Air Quality Study, three different air monitoring stations were discussed. However, it is unclear which air monitoring station or stations provided meteorological data. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency clarify which station or stations were used in the Final MND. Siting Warehouses near Residences 3. Based on the project description, the nearest sensitive receptors are approximately 1.4 mile to the south of the project. While SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions, there are concerns about the proximity of a warehouse to the existing residences and the potential long-term air quality impacts to the people living near the warehouse and along the truck routes as a result of increased truck activities. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land -use decision making process. In CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, CARB recommends a buffer of at least 1,000 feet between land uses that will have 100 or more trucks per day2. 4. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. In the event that the Lead Agency, after revising the HRA analysis based on the comments provided above, finds that the project would result in significant health risk impacts, SCAQMD staff recommends incorporating the following on -road mobile -source truck related mitigation measures in the Final MND, in addition to the mitigation measures 1) through 24). For more information on potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency, please visit SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook website3. • Require the use of 2010 compliant diesel trucks, or alternatively fueled, delivery trucks (e.g., food, retail and vendor supply delivery trucks) at commercial/retail sites upon project build -out. In the event that that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, provide documentation as information becomes available and use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements4. Additionally, consider other measures such as incentives, phase -in schedules for clean trucks, etc. • Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas. • Limit activities to the amounts analyzed in the MND. r CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: htto:/hvwwv,ub,ca.gov/chthmdbooLydf. Guidance is for siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center, Page 4. The buffer is a neutral mitigation measure provided to minimize truck activity emission impacts to sensitive receptors. Additionally, in April 2017, ARB published a technical advisoy, Strategies to Reduce.4ir Pollution Exposure .fear High -Volume Roachvqvs: Technical Advisory, to supplement ARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. This Technical Advisory is intended to provide information on strategies to reduce exposures to traffic emissions near high -volume roadways to assist land use planning and decision -making in order to protect public health and promote equity and environmental justice. Available at: httt)s•//www.wb.ca.gov/cli/landuse,htm t South Coast Air Quality Management District. hHo://u-Av.acimd.aov/home/regulations/ceaalair-ouality-analysis-hmdbook. ' Based on a review of California Air Resources Board's diesel truck regulations, 2010 model year diesel haul trucks should have already been available and can be obtained in a successful manner for the project construction California Air Resources Board. March 2016. Available at: hup://wewvtruckloadore/tca/files/ceLibra.vFiles/Filenatne/000000003422/California Cle n Truck -and -Trailer -Update odf(See slide 923). Dominick Perez May 24, 2017 Promote clean truck incentive programs (see the discussion above regarding Cleaner Operating Truck Incentive Programs). Provide electric vehicle (EV) Charging Stations (see the discussion below regarding EV charging stations). 5. In addition to the mobile source mitigation measures identified above, the Lead Agency should incorporate the following onsite area source mitigation measures below as guidance to further reduce the project's operational air quality impacts. • Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the project site to generate solar energy for the facility. • Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. • Use light colored paving and roofing materials. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. • Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. • Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. • Use of water -based or low VOC cleaning products. E6—E8 Pg389 M engineering traffic engineering • transportation planning group, me. acoustical engineering • parking studies air quality & greenhouse gas analysis October 13, 2017 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Response to Additional Comments for the Fourth and Utica Warehouse Project Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk and Noise Impact Studies, City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Dear Mr. Perez: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) received comments from the City of Rancho Cucamonga on 5/22/2017. The comments were submitted by Blurn/Coilins and their consultant SWAPE. The following responses are provided for to comments: Blum I Collins Comments for AQ/GHG/HRA Comment 1: Air Oualitv Our comments are supplemented by those of SWAPE, submitted herewith, which are incorporated by reference and which should be responded to during the City's process on the MND. See Attachment A (including letter from SWAPE with CalEEMod and AERSCREEN output files). Subtopic b. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? As you note, the South Coast Air Basin is non -attainment for ozone, PMIo and PM2 s. EXHIBIT T 4000 westerly place, suite 280 newport beach, california 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 www.rkengineer.com E6—E8 Pg390 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 2 Construction Emissions. The MND concedes that cumulative impacts from construction emissions will be significant as to N%, ozone and both PMio and PM2.5, but these impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels based on implementing certain mitigation measures. There is no substantial evidence these mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. In particular, we note that regarding these measures, there is no substantial evidence that emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels: 6. All construction equipment will be maintained in good operating condition: There is no requirement for Tier 4 or even Tier 2 construction equipment here. There is no substantial evidence this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 7. Construction contractors must show that they're using low -emission equipment or that doing .so isn't feasible: What assumptions did RK Engineering use in its air quality and HRA modeling regarding this equipment? Again, there is not even a Tier 2 requirement here, there are no standards for what is "feasible," and there is no substantial evidence this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 8. Construction contractors shall use electric or clean fuel equipment "where feasible. " See our comment above regarding feasibility. There is no evidence this measure as drafted or implemented will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 9. Construction crews shall, according to a statement in the construction grading plans, shut off equipment when not in use: A statement in the construction grading plans is not enforceable by the City, and there is no evidence this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 10. All asphalt must meet the performance standards of South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") Rule 1108: this is required anyway, and there is no evidence this measure will reduce emissions. 11. Paints and coatings shall meet the standards in SCAQMD Rule 1113, and shall be applied by hand or by high -volume, low-pressure spray. This would reduce VOCs. We don't see how it will reduce emissions of NO,,, ozone, PMio, or PM2.5. Measures 12, 13 and 14 are also required anyway, and would only reduce PM10 or possibly PM2.5 emissions, and there is no evidence they would do so even for these pollutants to a level of less than significant. MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg391 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 3 Response to Comment 1: The construction emissions for the project meet SCAQMD thresholds and are less than significant. The commenter appears to misunderstand the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15130. This section provides that a project's cumulative impact may be insignificant if the project's contribution to a cumulative impact is "cumulatively considerable". Here, as analyzed in the IS-MND and the project's AQR, because the project's construction impacts are less than significant, these impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable. The IS-MND specifies 14 air quality mitigation measures. The first five of these measures are imposed via the MND. The other nine measures were imposed via the General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR). Page 12 of the IS-MND states the following: The 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 (NO,), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM,.5 and PM,.) 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. This city- wide increase in emissions was identified as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the Section4.3 of the General Plan FPEIR. Further, CEQA authorizes a discussion of cumulative impacts contained in previously certified EIRs in CEQA Guidelines section 15130. With implementation of the following best, practices and mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize short-term air quality impacts, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be less -than - significant. The mitigation measures 6-9 listed in the comment above are in the IS-MND only and are not sourced from the project -specific Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Health Risk Assessment Report (AQR). They are BMPs from the City's General Plan FPEIR and, as stated above, emissions "would all be cumulatively considerable if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less -than -significant." Here, because the project construction impacts are less than significant, its impacts are not cumulatively considerable, and thus the project's cumulative construction impacts are not significant. MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg392 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 4 As stated above, and shown in the Tables in the IS-MND on pages 9 and 10 the construction emissions from the project are already all less than significant and do not require any construction -based mitigation measures. The IS-MND provides a conservative analysis and likely overstates the project's construction impacts, because mitigation measures 6 through 11 in Comment 1 above were not included or analyzed as part of the project -specific AQR, while these measures likely will reduce the project's construction impacts, their efficacy at reducing emissions was not included in the IS-MND analysis. No mitigation measures are required for the project because its construction impacts do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As stated on page 5-1 of the AQR, the analysis of the project reflects the construction of 235.62 thousand square feet (TSF) of warehouse space, approximately 2.1 acres on -site roads/paving, 65,132 square feet (SF) of landscaping, and a parking lot provided for a total of 317 vehicles. Construction was anticipated to begin no sooner than January 2017 and last approximately 7 months. As shown in Table 12 of the AQR and the Table on page 9 of the IS-MND, using the above parameters, none of the construction emissions exceed SCAQMD's regional construction thresholds prior to any mitigation (other than compliance with Rule 403). The only mitigation stated in the AQR is MM AQ-1 on page 1-3 of the AQR and requires that the "project applicant shall obtain a GPA to change the land use designation on the project site from Mixed Use: Industrial Area Specific Plan (Sub -Area 18) to an Industrial Land Use Designation." Therefore, no additional mitigation is required, as construction emissions are already less than significant. MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg393 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 5 Comment 2: Operational Emissions. You concede cumulative impacts from the buildout of the General Plan will be significant but that they are subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations from the Final Program EIR ("FPEIR"), and that several measures will make cumulative impacts insignificant. This is not based on substantial evidence for the reasons discussed below: 15. Preferential parkingfor HOVs and shuttle services. There is no actual provision for how many preferential parking spaces are to be provided, if any. There is no substantial evidence this measure will reduce emissions. The bulk of the emissions from the Project will come from trucks, not cars, HOVs or shuttle services accessing the site. 16. Schedule truck deliveries during off-peak Hours. There is no provision for how this is to happen, and it is doubtful that a distribution center will be able to limit truck deliveries to off-peak hours. Any conclusion this measureanll reduce emissions to less than significant levels is not based on substantial evidence. 17. Improve thermal integrity ofbuildings. There is no concrete provision for the logistics center meeting any insulation standard here. Any conclusion this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels is not based on substantial evidence. 21. 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). This violates a California Air Resources Board ("CARB") rule, which prohibits idling for over five minutes. See 13 CCR § 2485. There is no substantial evidence this measure will reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Response to Comment 2: The operational emissions for the project meet SCAQMD thresholds and are less than significant. The commenter appears to misunderstand the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15130. This section provides that a project's cumulative impact may be insignificant if the project's contribution to a cumulative impact is "Cumulatively considerable". Here, as analyzed in the IS-MND and the project's AQR, because the project's operational impacts are less than significant, these impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable, and..thus the project's cumulative operational air quality impacts are not significant. This comment references the General Plan FPEIR, and not this specific project. As shown in Table 14 of the AQR (Air Quality Report) and the Table Summary of Peak Operational Emissions on page 14 of the IS-MND, unmitigated operational emissions MD:sb1RK12540.doc JNi 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg394 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 6 do not exceed any SCAQMD regional operational thresholds. The above measures 15- 21 are BMPs from the FPEIR. The applicable BMPs stated in comment 2 above will reduce emissions; however, they are not necessary as mitigation measures because the operational emissions do not exceed SCAQMD regional operational thresholds. No additional mitigation is required. Comment 3: Subtopic d. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The answer, according to a properly done Health Risk Screening Assessment, is yes, as SWAPE's analysis shows. Therefore, an EIR with a full-blown Health Risk Assessment, using proper parameters and SCAQMD and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") guidance, should be prepared. The MND is improper because there is a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on humans, which is relevant both for this subtopic as to Air Quality and as to subtopic c under CEQA's Mandatory Findings of Significance, "Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?" Response to Comment 3: A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was included as part of the project -specific AQR and determined that the project would not expose sensitive receptors in the project vicinity to either short-term or long-term TAC emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in a million. Therefore, SWAPE is incorrect and the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. SCAQMD commented on the project -specific analysis in their letter dated May 24, 2017, and, per SCAQMD comments and guidance, the HRA was updated on July 10, 2017 using SCAQMD's currently adopted version of the OEHHA risk assessment methodology and SCAQMD-recommended calculations for estimation of cancer risk (based on procedures for SCAQMD Rules 1401 and 212)' from project operations. The revised HRA still shows that no sensitive receptors are exposed to a cancer risk in excess of 10 in a million. This update merely amplifies the discussion in the IS-MND and the update does not change any of the analysis or the conclusions of the IS-MND and thus the IS-MND need not be recirculated. Source: http://www.agmd.gov/dots/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/riskassprocjunel5. pdf?sfvrsn=2 MD:sb/RK12540.doc JN: 2076-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg395 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 7 The SWAPE HRA analysis focuses on construction health risk, and was based on a screening analysis of construction -based health risks and is incorrect, as SCAQMD does not require any HRA for construction -based risk and did not require or mention a construction -based health risk assessment in their comment letter dated May 24, 2017. Furthermore, SWAPE employed methodology to estimate construction -based risk that is not endorsed or approved by SCAQMD. SWAPE's construction -based HRA is flawed as it uses incorrect data for inputs into AERSCREEN. SWAPE's comment on page 11 (Attachment A Page 17) states the project's construction is to occur over a 211-day period. However, based upon information from the project applicant and based upon construction duration for projects similarly sized and situated, as shown in the CaIEEMod output and described in the AQR, the project's 5-day per week construction schedule is only 174 days (10 days for site prep, 40 days for grading, 80 days for building construction, 20 days for paving, and 24 days for architectural coating). SWAPE also state that the project uses 21 pieces of construction equipment; whereas based upon input from the project applicant and the amount of equipment generally used to construct a building of this size on land with the same general characteristics as the project site, the CalEEMod output indicates that the project will in fact use a total of 31 pieces of equipment; SWAPE also said that the project will generate 384 pounds of DPM over the "211" days of construction, whereas the output shows that the project will generate a total of 0.1774 tons, which is only 354.8 lbs. Furthermore, SWAPE's analysis did not use the project -specific emissions factor (0.08993 tons/year) for construction equipment that was given for the overlapping construction phases of building construction, paving and architectural coating; the emissions for grading were slightly less, 0.0737 tons/year, so the higher emissions rate should be used (for an analysis of worst -case impacts). SWAPE's analysis also used an exposure frequency of 211 days, when the entire construction period only lasts 174 days. The overlapping construction phase lasts 124 days and grading only lasts 40 days; therefore, the exposure calculated by the commenter is over -estimated, resulting in incorrect risk impact values. As SWAPE's calculations are based on incorrect data, the results will also be incorrect and over -estimate the risk. Furthermore, per Michael Krause at SCAQMD, construction -based TAC impacts are addressed through analysis of the PM emissions at the local level, using localized significance thresholds (LSTs). This analysis was performed in the AQR (shown in Table 13 of the AQR and discussed on page 6-1 of the AQR), and shows that the maximum daily PM emissions from the construction do not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds; therefore, TAC-related impacts from construction PM are also anticipated to be less than significant. MD:sb1RK72540.doc JN: 2016-2076-01.2 E6—E8 Pg396 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 8 As SCAQMD does not require or encourage construction HRAs, no further analysis is required. SWAPE is incorrect and the impacts are considered to still be less than significant. Comment 4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions We incorporate SWAPE's comments, attached, as our own. We also note that the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold you have adapted from the SCAQMD was developed under AB 32. The Legislature has since passed SB32 calling for further greenhouse gas ("GHG") reductions, and the 3,000 MTCO2e standard may be too lenient. You have not addressed SB32 or Executive Order S-3-05 targets in your Negative Declaration, and the State must comply with them during the life of the Project. You have no demonstration on how this will be feasible. We also note that among the mitigation measures you should have considered but did not was providing electric charging capabilities for trucks at the distribution center. Response to Comment 4: CEQA affords the lead agency discretion concerning selection of significance thresholds and methods of impacts analysis, we offer the following responses. SB 32. SB 32, Pavley. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (1) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. This bill would require the state board to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. (2) This bill would become operative only if AB 197 of the 2015-16 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2017. AB 197 requires that the California Air Resources Board, which directs implementation of emission - reduction programs, should target direct reductions at both stationary and mobile sources. This AQR (Air Quality Report) was conducted prior to January 1, 2017; therefore, the additional requirements per SB-32 were not in force. Nonetheless, even though SB- 32 could not be evaluated in the IS/MND, the IS/MND adequately discloses the MD:sb1RK12540.doc IN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg397 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 9 project's greenhouse gas impacts. Furthermore, SB-32 requires the state board to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. SCAQMD's thresholds used Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. The California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following reduction targets: s 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels • 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels • 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The SCAQMD's draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order's objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to a CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact report, which includes analyzing feasible alternatives and imposing feasible mitigation measures. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because most projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that SCAQMD staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for slightly less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2eq/yr). In addition, these small projects maybe subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. Finally, these small sources are already subject to BACT for criteria pollutants and are more likely to be single -permit facilities, so they are more likely to have few opportunities readily available to reduce GHG emissions from other parts of their facility. As the City does not have a GHG threshold, the use of the 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening threshold is a reasonable threshold to use, as it is a very conservative threshold. Per SCAQMD research and data, 90 percent of projects will generate GHG emissions that would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/year. Furthermore, other jurisdictions, MD:sb1RK12540.doc IN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg398 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 10 such as Riverside County and San Bernardino County, use 3,000 MTCO2e/year as a screening threshold of significance. As the SCAQMD uses EO S-3-05 as the basis for their GHG emissions screening level (of 3,000 MTCO2e/year), and EO S-3-05 includes the long-term goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, the project would also be consistent with the goal of SB 32 (to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). Therefore, projects that meet the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD would also be on track to meet the reduction targets for 2030. Furthermore, all of the post 2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the project will be required to comply with these regulations as they come into effect. No additional mitigation measures are required and impacts are still considered to be less than significant. Because the project's greenhouse gas impacts are less than significant, CEQA does not require imposition of mitigation. Nonetheless, as disclosed in the IS/MND, various mitigation measures included in the IS/MND will further reduce the project's GHG impacts. SWAPE Comments for AQ/GHG/HRA Comment 1: Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS for the Project relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2013.2.2 ("CaIEEMod"). CaIEEMod provides recommended default values based on site specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project -specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.z Once all the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and make known which default values were changed as well as provide a justification for the values selected. When reviewing the Project's CaIEEMod output files, which are located in the Fourth and Utica LP Warehouse Air Quality Study, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Study ("Air Quality Study'), we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS and are not consistent with MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg399 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 11 guidance set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for high -cube warehouse projects. As a result, emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project are greatly underestimated. A Project -specific EIR should be prepared to adequately assess the potential impacts that construction and operation of the Project may have on regional and local air quality and global climate change. Failure to Account for Demolition of Existing Structures According to the IS, "approximately two-thirds of the project site contains an abandoned parking lot and approximately one-third of the site contains an undeveloped gravel pad with non-native ruderal plant species... which will be removed for development of the proposed project" (pp. 20). Therefore, in order to be consistent with what is proposed in the IS, and in order to provide the most conservative analysis, as required by CECA, the Project's construction emissions should have been modeled assuming demolition of the existing parking lot and undeveloped gravel pad. Review of the Project's CalEEMod output files, however, demonstrates that this is not the case (Air Quality Study, pp. 92-94, pp. 116-118, pp. 140-142). By failing to model the Project's emissions assuming demolition of the existing parking lot and gravel pad, the IS not only underestimates emissions resulting from demolition activities, but it also underestimates emissions resulting from the additional hauling trips needed to transport the demolition debris from the Project site, which would increase fugitive dust as well as other pollutant emissions associated with truck travel. As is demonstrated in the updated CalEEMod model discussed in the sections below (output files attached to this letter for reference), transport of demolished materials off - site would result in a total of approximately 2,346 additional hauling trips. Therefore, by failing to account for the proposed Project's demolition activities, emissions from sources such as diesel exhaust and fugitive dust associated with the demolition of the parking lot and gravel pad are greatly underestimated. As such, we find the Project's CalEEMod model to be inaccurate and unreliable for determining Project significance. Response to SWAPE Comment 1: SWAPE wrongfully asserts that "the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS and are not consistent with guidance set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for high -cube warehouse projects. As a result, emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project are greatly underestimated." SWAPE states that the analysis fails to account for the demolition of existing structures; this is incorrect. There are no existing structures to be demolished on -site, only an abandoned parking lot. According to the CaIEEMod user's guide, "Site Preparation involves clearing vegetation (grubbing and tree/stump removal) and MD:sb1RK72540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg400 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 12 stones prior to grading" and uses the following equipment: 3 rubber -tired dozers and 4 tractors/loaders/backhoes, which, based upon our experience (including construction surveys) in analyzing numerous projects throughout California, is more than adequate to clear away crumbling parking lot material. The project -related emissions associated with the clearing of existing vegetation and the remnants of the abandoned parking lot were analyzed as part of the site preparation phase as shown in Tables 12 and 13 in the AQR and the Tables on pages 9 and 10 of the IS-MND. The "demolition" phase in CalEEMod is reserved for demolition of actual structures. As there are no existing buildings or structures to demolish, analysis of the "demolition" of a structure would be incorrect and over -estimate the project's construction emissions. Furthermore, no export of material will occur, only import of 30,000 CY of soil during grading, which was included in the analysis. Therefore there is no under -estimation of additional hauling trips, as additional hauling trips will not occur. As the site is in deficit of material, it would be anticipated that useable material would be recycled and used for fill on -site. Therefore, no additional analysis is required and emissions modeling calculations are accurate based on the actual project -specific information provided by the developer. SWAPE Comment 2: Incorrectly Assumes Unrefrigerated Warehouse Land Use The IS's CalEEMod model assumes that the Project's proposed warehouse will be exclusively unrefrigerated, and as a result, the Project's operational emissions may be grossly underestimated. According to the CalEEMod output files, the Project's proposed warehouse land use was modeled as "Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail" (see excerpt below) (Air Quality Study, pp. 91, pp. 115, pp. 139). 4th and Utica, Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino -South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage ... .Larduns - 5@e -- .. 4i1rF, .. LotAc a Flog 9atace keg Pd(.1nam , uvave dwntovs NORDJ 23562 1ctow 1 edl 235.6'0.00 �. 0• .................... .....................................t-• _____-"-----_-----' ---___ ..I-................... --0 CPcr,t5a1J', Suroces 2.10 Xre 2.f0 I 91d78.00 OVar Nao-.HyNA SUia29 6517 ICOCWI .'-- I iW 65,13200---- ---_0_..--/- ........."""'......................................... i--__ - I —^ ...... ..... Panilg LW 317.00 Space 2 E5 12 ,,000.00 0 Assuming that the Project's proposed warehouse will be composed of entirely unrefrigerated warehouse space, however, is incorrect, as nothing in the IS indicates that MD:sb/RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg401 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 13 the future tenants of the Project's warehouse are currently known. For this reason, it can be reasonably assumed that at least a portion of the proposed warehouse land uses will be made up of refrigerated warehouses, and therefore, should be modeled as such. Thus, assuming that the warehouse will be unrefrigerated is unsubstantiated. Since the IS did not indicate that the future tenants of the proposed warehouse are known and because CEQA requires that the most conservative analysis be conducted, a portion of the warehouse building should have been modeled as refrigerated space, and the other portion as unrefrigerated space in order account for the additional emissions that refrigeration requirements could generate. By modeling the Project's emissions assuming that no refrigerated warehouses will operate on -site, the IS greatly underestimates the actual emissions that would occur once the proposed Project is operational. Refrigerated warehouses release more air pollutants and GHG emissions when compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for several reasons. First, warehouses equipped with cold storage (refrigerators and freezers, for example) are known to consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage. Second, warehouses equipped with cold storage typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer, even up to an hour, when compared to unrefrigerated hauling trucks. Lastly, according to a July 2014 Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage presentation prepared by the SCAQMD, it was found that hauling trucks that require refrigeration result in greater truck trip rates when compared to non - refrigerated hauling trucks. As is discussed by the SCAQMD, "CEQA requires the use of 'conservative analysis' to afford 'fullest possible protection of the environment."' As a result, the most conservative analysis should be conducted. With this in mind, the proposed Project should be modeled as "Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail," or at the very least, a portion of the proposed building should be modeled as "Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail," with the remaining portion of the building modeled as "Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail," so as to take into consideration the possibility that future tenants may require both cold storage and non -cold storage. By not including refrigerated warehouses as a potential land use in the air quality model, the Project's operational emissions may be grossly underestimated, as the future tenants are currently unknown. Unless the Project Applicant can demonstrate that the future tenants of these proposed buildings will be limited to unrefrigerated warehouse uses, exclusively, it should be assumed that a mix of cold and noncold storage will be provided on -site. A Project -specific EIR should be prepared to account for the possibility of refrigerated warehouse needs by future tenants. Response to SWAPE Comment 2: MD:sb/RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg402 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 14 SWAPE's assertions are incorrect. The project description does not include any refrigerated warehouse uses and it would be speculative to assume that the warehouse would include refrigerated uses. As the project's tenants are unknown and the building is a speculative warehouse, per the project applicant, the building will not be refrigerated; therefore, the analysis was conducted as a non -refrigerated warehouse. The project description does not include any mention of refrigerated uses; therefore, the analysis of refrigerated uses is not required. No additional emissions are expected due to refrigeration of goods on -site. Furthermore, the City shall impose a condition of approval barring refrigerated uses from the site. If refrigerated uses are requested at the site at a later date, the City would require an additional analysis for those uses to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Comment 3: Use of Incorrect Fleet Mix Percentage The Project's CaIEEMod model relies upon the vehicle fleet mix disclosed in the Project's Trip Generation Analysis to model the Project's operational mobile -source emissions. However, our review demonstrates that the vehicle fleet mix provided in the Trip Generation Analysis is incorrect and inconsistent with SCAQMD recommendations. As a result, the Project's operational mobile -source emissions are underestimated. The Trip Generation Analysis provides a memorandum that discusses potential trip generation rates for the proposed Project. According to the Trip Generation Analysis, the Project's fleet mix percentages were based off of the SCAQMD's "trip generation study to identify trip generation rates for high cube uses" (p. 1). However, the Trip Generation Analysis never clearly specifies which AQMD survey it is basing its fleet mix percentages on. All the Trip Generation Analysis states is that, "based on the AQM D survey, of the total trip generation, approximately 38.1% are trucks, and the remaining 61.9% is automobile traffic" (p. 1). The table below summarizes the fleet mix provided by the Trip Generation Analysis and used within CaIEEMod to estimate the Project's operational mobile -source emissions (see table below) (Trip Generation Analysis, p. 1). MD:sb/RK72540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg403 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 15 Table A - Proposed Project Trip Generation WSW_11AM Tlaity tatd Use .Ure1s1 911 1 al giY�TeLtif High -Cube Warehouse 235,620 TSF -71 Up Oeneratlon Rates° 0.076 0.031 0.110 0.037 0.083 0.120 1.680 PCE Sp& 69% 31% 100% 31% 69% 100"h 50%150% P�_��iCa_YEcryi_valenCR.S_s�6�Ici:51_ions_�Rates Passenger Cars Recommended Mix 1%)r 6190% 6190.6 61"% 61 90% 61.90% 61.90% 6190% PCE Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 PCE Rates 0.047 0021 O.CF,B 0.023 0.051 0.074 1.040 Mxle Trucks Recammended Wx (%)1 6459A 645% 6.45% 645% 645% 5.45% 645% PCE Faun' 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 is PCE Rees 0.007 0.003 0.011 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.163 ?-Axle Trucks Remmmandad MN (%)' 8 65% 8 65% 8.65% 8 65% 8.65% 8.65% 8 65% PCE Facia' 20 2.0 2.0 20 20 2.0 2.0 PCE Rates 0013 0006 0.019 O.C406 0.014 0.021 0.291 4Axle Trucks RE-COw, ended ldet )%)1 229 A 22.99% 22.99% 22.99%, 22.99% 22.99% 22.%% PCE Fadoe 30 3.0 3,0 30 30 3.0 3.0 PCE Rates 0.062 0.024 0.076 1 0.026 0.057 0.083 1.159 However, these fleet mix percentages are incorrect and do not accurately reflect the fleet mix percentages recommended by the SCAQMD for high -cube warehouses, and do not accurately represent the percentage of trucks that access a high -cube warehouse on a daily basis. Therefore, the Trip Generation Analysis's assertion that its fleet mix percentages are based on an AQMD survey is entirely unsubstantiated. The SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies assume a truck fleet mix of 40 percent for high -cube warehouses. According to Appendix E: Technical5ource Documentation of the CalEEMod User's Guide, "in order to avoid underestimating the number of trucks visiting warehouse facilities," SCAQMD staff "recommends that lead agencies conservatively assume that an average of 40% of total trips are truck trips [(0.48*10 + 0.2*4)/(10+4)=0.4)]."aTherefore, in an effort to remain consistent with guidance set forth by the SCAQMD, a truck fleet percentage of 40% should have been used to estimate the Project's warehouse emissions. Since the future tenant of the warehouse is unknown, the tenant schedule is also likely not known; therefore, a 40 percent truck fleet mix should have been used for the proposed highcube warehouse building. Review of the IS's CalEENIod output files demonstrate that, consistent with the Trip Generation Analysis, a truck fleet (LHD1, MHD, and HHDT) percentage of approximately MD:sb/RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6-E8 Pg404 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 16 38.1% was used, rather than the 40% value recommended by the SCAQMD (Air Quality Study, pp. 110, pp. 134, pp. 159). As a result, the Project's warehouse truck emissions are potentially underestimated. Instead, the following fleet mix percentage should have been applied to the high -cube warehouse building proposed for the Project. . , . Parameter Initial Study ` SWAPE Fleet Mix _ Fleet Mix Passenger Cars 61.9% 60.0% High -Cube Warehouse Operational Mobile Fleet Mix (LDA, LDT1, LDT2) 2 Axle Trucks(LHD1, LHD2) 3 Axle Trucks (MHD) 4+ Axle Trucks (H H DT) 6.40% 7.03% 8.70% 9.33% 23.0% 23.63% The "Operational Mobile Fleet Mix' percentages for trucks (LHD1, LHD2, MHD, and HHDT) in the table above were adjusted to reflect a truck trip percentage of approximately 40 percent, which is consistent with recommended procedures set forth by SCAQMD staff for high -cube warehouses. This truckfleet mix more accurately represents the number of trips that are likely to occur in relation to the high -cube warehouse during Project operation. As such, an updated air quality analysis should be prepared in a Project -specific EIR that adequately assesses the Project's air quality impacts, assuming the correct fleet mix for the high -cube warehouse land uses. Response to SWAPE Comment 3: SWAPE wrongly asserts that "the vehicle fleet mix provided in the Trip Generation Analysis is incorrect and inconsistent with SCAQMD recommendations. As a result, the Project's operational mobile -source emissions are underestimated." The SCAQMD recommendations cited by SWAPE are out of date and have been replaced. They were recommended by SCAQMD in July 2013. The most recent recommendations regarding warehouse fleet mix (dated October 17, 2014) is provided by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee and supersedes the information SWAPE uses as a basis for their claim. SCAQMD recommends the use of the ITE 1.68 overall trip rate with a 0.64 truck trip rate. This means a 0.64 rate for trucks divided by 1.38 rate for total vehicles yields 38.09% percent trucks and 61.91 percent passenger cars; which was exactly what was stated in the traffic analysis and exactly what was used in the AQ-GHG-HRA analysis for the project. Z Available at http://www.agmd.gov/dots/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip- rate-study-for-a it-q uality-analysis/warehouse101714pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=2 MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2015-01.2 E6—E8 Pg405 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 17 SWAPS is stating that a 1.9% increase in truck traffic (resulting in a 1.9% decrease in passenger vehicle traffic) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. This is completely incorrect. The project's emissions are so low, that even if the project's daily emissions were increased by 1.9%, they would not exceed SCAQMD daily criteria pollutant thresholds. For example, as shown in the Table of Peak Operational Emissions on page 14 of the IS-MND, the pollutant that is closestto any SCAQMD threshold is NOX. NOx emissions are a total of 29.54 Ibs per day and the threshold is 55 lbs. per day. If the emissions were increased by 1.9%, the NOx emissions would still only be 30.1 Ibs/day, 24.9 Ibs less than the daily NOx threshold and would not make any difference to the significance of the emissions. Even an increase of 1.9% in GHG emissions would only increase the emissions from 2,527.26 MTCO2e/year to 2,575.28 MTCO2e/year, both of which are still well under the SCAQMD and CAP screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. Comment 4: Incorrectly Applied Fleet Mix Percentage to Trip Type Percentage Not only did the IS rely upon an incorrect truck fleet mix percentage to estimate the Project's mobile source emissions, but it also input this fleet mix percentage into the CalEEMod modelincorrectly. As a result, the Project's operational mobile -source emissions are both greatly underestimated and inaccurate. As discussed in the previous section, the IS relies upon an incorrect fleet mix, and applies this incorrect fleet mix to the CaIEEMod model. Review of the IS's CalEEMod output files, however, indicate that a car trip percentage of 61.9 percent was also applied to commercial-nonwork (C-NW) trip types to represent the number of passenger car trips that would occur, and a truck trip percentage of 38.1 percent was applied to commercial- work(C-W) trip types to represent the number of truck trips that would occur during Project operation (see excerpt below) (Air Quality Study, pp. 110, pp. 134, pp. 159). •. •. - W6es1 TOP PUWse%-. _ IaM Da ,• F}WaGW if9ut GQ..H�aCNN HYfef C-W HSaGC" H-0aGNW! Penury Owrte6.: ., PurOy 011ampftsuda. 1660 I 840 690 000 000 000 0 0 0 .....................�.______-___;_________•-.-___.. O... N.............. ' B-- ' _. 690-.=-000—' —_—_—�__.. ___. 000 T � _._......------•...---d....•---_---- 0.00 0 ._.._ 0-- ..................................^-'---____._..._.. Pakvg Lot ---- 1660 ' 6.J0 6.90 D00 ?'--off_. D.w 6 - D .0 6 Onreni5aa:ze Warerouse-1!o p J000 6A0 690 38.10 000 fi150 92 5 3 The application of these percentages to the trip types within CalEEMod is entirely incorrect. According to Appendix A of the CaIEEMod User's Guide, "the trip type breakdown describes the purpose of the trip generated at each land use," and "multiplying the total trips for a land use by trip type breakdown percentage yields trips for a given trip type."9This trip type, however, does not specifically apply to vehicle classes, as is assumed by the IS. Commercial -work (C-W) trips are not made by trucks, MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg406 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 18 exclusively, and commercial-nonwork (C-NW) trips are not made by passenger cars, exclusively. Rather, "the commercial -work trip represents a trip made by someone who is employed by the commercial land use sector," which can include trips made by employees in light -duty trucks and passenger cars as well as trips made by vendors in light -duty and heavy-duty trucks. Similarly, "the commercial-nonwork trip represents a trip associated with the commercial land use other than by customers or workers," such as "trips made by delivery vehicles of goods associated with the land use."11Therefore, applying a trip percentage of 38.1 percent to C-W trips to represent the number of truck trips that will occur during Project operation is incorrect, as C-W trips include trips made by a mix of vehicle types, including passenger cars. Similarly, applying a trip percentage of 61.9 percent to C-NW trips to represent the number of passenger car trips that will occur during Project operation is incorrect, as C-NW trips include trips made by a mix of vehicle types, including trucks. Due to these reasons, an updated air quality analysis must be prepared in a Project -specific EIR in order to adequately assess the Project's air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. Response to SWAPE Comment 4: The commenter provides no substantial evidence indicating that the suggested methodology would lead to a significant unavoidable impact. The trip type percentages were adjusted as shown above to ensure that the C-W trips are multiplied by the additional mileage of 40 miles each way for 38.10 percent of the site's vehicles, to represent the miles and trip percentage for C-W vehicles. SCAQMD has reviewed the use of this methodology in previous warehouse -type analyses performed by this AQ analyst and have not had any issues with or comments regarding the methodology. The methodology employed in this report follows SCAQMD guidance and the vehicle mix was adjusted, as shown in Table 11 of the AQR. SCAQMD does not require or recommend a stand-alone analysis of trucks for the project site (as performed by SWAPE). AQ impacts are analyzed using approved SCAQMD methodology and are consistent with the project as described in the project description in the IS-MND. No further analysis is warranted or required. Impacts are still considered to be less than significant. Comment 5: Updated Analysis Indicates Increase in Pollutant Emissions In an effort to accurately estimate the proposed Project's operational emissions, we prepared two updated air models using the most recent CaIEEMod version, CaIEEMod.2016.3.1. Two separate models were prepared for the high -cube warehouse building- one to model construction emissions and operational emissions from trucks associated with the high -cube warehouse building, and one to model operational emissions from the Passenger Car (LDA) trips associated with the high -cube warehouse MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 20 7 6-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg407 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 19 building. Since it is unknown how many tenants will require cold -storage, we conservatively assumed that approximately 15 percent of the warehouse buildings will be made up of refrigerated warehouses. This percentage is consistent with studies conducted by the SCAQMD on composite warehouses within southern California12 and is consistent with assumptions used in other CEQA evaluations prepared for similar projects. We utilized a truck trip rate of 0.64 trips per thousand square foot and a passenger car trip rate of 1.04 trips per thousand square foot for both the refrigerated and unrefrigerated high -cube warehouse land uses, which is consistent with recommendations set forth by the SCAQMD. Also consistent with the SCAQMD, we assumed that 40% of these high -cube warehouse vehicle trips would be made by trucks, and we applied the SCAQMD recommended truck fleet mix by axle type to the trucks -only model for the proposed high -cube warehouse (LHDT1, MHD, and HHDT) (see table below). SCAQMD Recommended Truck Fleet Mix Truck Type Fleet Mix (%) 4+ Axle Trucks (HHDT) 60.35% 3 Axle Trucks (MHD) 22.71% 2 Axle Trucks (LHD1) 16.9436 Total 100.0% Our warehouse building models utilized the fleet mix for passenger cars and trucks that was calculated by SWAPE. Since we modeled the passenger cars and trucks separately, a fleet mix of 100 percent was assigned to LDA in our passenger car model, and our truck model utilized the weighted truck fleet mix calculated by SWAPE. We assigned 100 percent of trips to the C-W trip type with a corresponding trip length of 16.60 miles in the passenger car model. In our truck model, we assigned 100 percent of trips to the C-NW trip type with a corresponding trip length of 40 miles to represent the anticipated truck traffic associated with the proposed Project's buildings. When correct input parameters are used to model emissions from the proposed Project, we find that the Project's construction emissions increase significantly when compared to the IS's model. Furthermore, we find that the Project's construction -related VOC emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional significance threshold of 75 pounds per day (lbs/day), in conflict with findings in the IS (see table below). MD: sb1RK 12540. doc JAI: 2016-2016-01.2 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 20 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions f ibs/davi Model VOC NO PM10 PM2.5 IS SWAPE 54.0 96.4 56.9 96.9 6.9 30.0 4.0 12.8 Percent Increase 79% 70% 77% 220% SCAQMD Regional Threshold (ibs/day) Threshold Exceeded? 75 Yes 100 I No 150 No 55 No As demonstrated in the table above, when correct input parameters are used to model emissions all the construction criteria air pollutant emissions increase. VOC emissions increase by approximately 79 percent and exceed the SCAQMD's established threshold, NO. emissions increase by approximately 70 percent, PM10 emissions increase by approximately 77 percent, and PM2.5 emissions increase by approximately 220 percent. Additionally, we find that, when modeled correctly, the Project's operational emissions increase significantly when compared to the IS's model. Furthermore, our updated model demonstrates that the Project's operational NO. emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional significance threshold of 55 pounds per day (ibs/day), in conflict with findings in the IS (see table below). Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Emissions (pounds per day) Operational Activities NO PM10 PM2.5 Area 0 0 0 Energy 0.6 0 0 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 0.8 3.1 0.8 Mobile (Trucks) 61.9 6.0 2.1 SWAPE's Total Maximum Daily Emissions 63 9 3 IS's Total Maximum Daily Emissions 30 6 2 Percent Increase 114% 46% 494'0 SCAQMD Regional Threshold (ibs/day) 55 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No MD:sb/RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2076-01.2 E6—E8 Pg409 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 21 As demonstrated above, when correct input parameters are used to model emissions, NOx emissions increase by approximately 114% and exceed the SCAQMD's established threshold, PM10 emissions increase by approximately 46%, and PM2.5 emissions increase by approximately 49%. These updated emission estimates demonstrate that when the Project's construction and operational emissions are estimated correctly, the Project would result in significant impacts that were not previously identified in the IS. As a result, a Project -specific EIR should be prepared that includes an updated model to adequately estimate the Project's construction and operational emissions, and additional mitigation measures should be identified and incorporated to reduce these emissions to a less -than - significant level. Response to SWAPE Comment 5: SWAPE's assumptions are incorrect. See response to SWAPE comments 2-4 above. SWAPE has analyzed a project as a refrigerated warehouse with a fleet mix that is not recommended for use by SCAQMD and has not been approved by the City; therefore, the analysis presented by SWAPE is not consistent with the description of the current project and the results do not accurately reflect the potential emissions generated by the current project; which were accurately analyzed in the AQR. The methodology used by SWAPE (modeling the trucks separately and then the cars separately) to assess mobile sources, is not an approved SCAQMD methodology and will result in erroneous and inaccurate over -estimation of emissions. SCAQMD reviewed the IS - MIND and AQR for the project on May 24, 2017 and found no issue with the analysis methodology and CalEEMod modeling for the project. SWAPE's VOC construction emissions calculation is also incorrect. SWAPE claimed in the CaIEEMod output that the emissions "Reflects input parameters reflected in IS's air quality model." However, although SWAPE did change the default value for nonresidential exterior coating to 125,148 SF, they did not change the default values for interior coating to 353,430 SF; therefore, the default value for interior coating (if used by SWAPE) would be 594,048 SF, which is over 1.5 times larger than the actual surface area to be painted and over -estimates the emissions. Therefore, SWAPE has overestimated the VOC emissions by using the wrong interior square footage for paint application. Therefore; SWAPE's construction emissions estimates are incorrect and invalid. The project's construction and operational emissions as analyzed in the AQR and reported in the IS-MND are correct, and are less than significant. No additional mitigation or analysis is required. MD:sblRK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg410 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 22 SWAPE Comment 6: Additional Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce VOC Construction Emissions Our updated Cal EEMod model demonstrates that when the revised Project is adequately evaluated, construction -related VOC (also referred to as ROG) emissions would result in a significant impact. Even just short-term exposure to VOC emissions can cause eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, fatigue, loss of coordination, allergic skin reactions, nausea, and memory impairment.v Longer -term exposure can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system.isThese health problems can affect both on -site construction workers and the surrounding community. Therefore, mitigation measures must be identified and incorporated in a Project -specific EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Numerous feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce VOC emissions, including the following, which are routinely identified in other CEQA matters as feasible mitigation measures: Use of Zero-VOC Emissions Paint The Project Applicant should consider the use of zero-VOC emission paints, which has been required for numerous projects that have undergone CECA review. Zero-VOC emission paints are commercially available. Other low-VOC standards should be incorporated into mitigation including use of "supercompliant" paints, which have a VOC standard of less than 10 g/L. Use of Material that Does Not Require Paint Using materials that do not require painting is a common mitigation measure where VOC emissions are a concern. Interior and exterior surfaces, such as concrete, can be left unpainted. Use ofSpray Equipment with Greater Transfer Efficiencies Various coatings and adhesives are required to be applied by specified methods such as electrostatic spray, high -volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray, roll coater, flow coater, dip coater, etc. in order to maximize the transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the weight of coating solids adhering to an object to the total weight of coating solids used in the application process, expressed as a percentage. When it comes to spray applications, the rules typically require the use of either electrostatic spray equipment or HVLP spray equipment. The SCAQMD is now able to certify HVLP spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater. When combined together, these measures offer a feasible way to effectively reduce the Project's construction -related VOC emissions to a less than significant level. As such, these MD:sb/RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg411 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 23 mitigation measures should be considered in a Project -specific EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Response to SWAPE Comment 6: SWAPE wrongfully asserts that construction -related VOC emissions are significant. This is completely incorrect. As stated in Response to SWAPE Comment 5 above, SWAPE claimed in the CalEEMod output that the emissions "Reflects input parameters reflected in IS's air quality model." However, although they did change the default value for nonresidential exterior coating to 125,148 SF, they did not change the default values for interior coating to 353,430 SF; therefore, the default value (if used by SWAPE) would be 594,048 SF, which is over 1.5 times larger than the actual surface area to be painted and over -estimates the emissions. Therefore, SWAPE has overestimated the VOC emissions by using the wrong interior square footage for paint application. Therefore; SWAPE'S construction emissions estimates are incorrect and invalid. Additional mitigation measures are not required as the project, as analyzed correctly (using the City -approved fleet mix [per the approved traffic scoping] and unrefrigerated warehouse land uses) in the AQR, does not exceed the SCAQMD VOC emissions thresholds either during construction or operation. See responses to the SWAPE Comments 2-5 above. SWAPE Comment 7: Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS concludes that "no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project" without conducting an actual construction health risk assessment (HRA) (Air Quality Study, p. 6-2). The IS attempts to justify this conclusion by stating, "The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of 'individual cancer risk'. 'Individual Cancer Risk' is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk -assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy- duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk" (Air Quality Study, p. 6-2). MD:sb/RK12540.doc JAI: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg412 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 24 This justification for failing to conduct a quantified construction HRA, however, is incorrect for several reasons. First, simply stating that the Project has a "limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment" and a "short-term construction schedule" does not justify the omission of a construction HRA. According to the SCAQMD, it is recommended that health risk impacts from short-term projects also be assessed. The Guidance document states, "Since these short-term calculations are only meant for projects with limits on the operating duration, these short-term cancer risk assessments can be thought of as being the equivalent to a 30-year cancer risk estimate and the appropriate thresholds would still apply (i.e. for a 5- year project, the maximum emissions during the 5-year period would be assessed on the more sensitive population, from the third trimester to age 5, after which the project's emissions would drop to 0 forthe remaining 25 years to get the 30-year equivalent cancer risk estimate)" Seeing as Project construction is expected to occur over a 211- day period, it is reasonable to assume that a significant amount of diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known human carcinogen, will be emitted from the exhaust stacks of the 21 pieces of construction equipment the Project proposes to use (Air Quality Study, pp. 97, pp. 98). Thus, a health risk assessment is required to determine whether or not a Projectwould expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutants. The IS should have conducted some sort of quantitative analysis and should have compared the results of this analysis to applicable thresholds. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provides a specific numerical threshold of 10 in one million for determining a project's health risk impaCt.21Therefore, the IS should have conducted an assessment that compares the Project's construction health risks to this threshold in order to determine the Project's health risk impact. By failing to prepare a health risk assessment, the IS fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the sensitive receptor impacts that may occur as a result of exposure to substantial air pollutants. Second, the omission of a quantified health risk is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing recommendations and guidance on how to conduct health risk assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.22This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk assessment. As previously stated, grading and construction activities for the proposed Project will produce emissions of DPM through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over an approximate 211-day period (Air Quality Study, pp. 97). The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.23Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines, health risk MD:sb/RK12540.doc JN: 2076-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg413 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 25 impacts from Project construction should have been evaluated by the IS. This recommendation reflects the most recent health risk assessment policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from construction should be included in a revised CEQA evaluation for the Project. In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by Project construction to nearby sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening -level health risk assessment. The results of our assessment, as described below, provide substantial evidence that the Project's construction DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously identified. As of 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends AERSCREEN as the leading air dispersion model, due to improvements in simulating local meteorological conditions based on simple input parameters.24The model replaced SCREENS, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (CAPCOA)2eguidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs "). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site -specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project's construction - related impact to sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from our updated SWAPE CalEEMod model. The IS states that the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are located within 160 feet, or approximately 50 meters away (Air Quality Study, p. 1-1). The CaIEEMod model's annual emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 384 pounds of DPM over the 211-day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation. (grams ll 384 !bs 453.6 grains 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate `second/ 211 days x !b 24 hours x 3,600 seconds — 0.00553 g/s Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00553 grams per second (g/s). Construction activity was simulated as an 11.84-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 264 meters by 181.5 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban MD:sb/RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg414 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 26 meteorological setting was selected with model -default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generated maximum reasonable estimates of single hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPAguidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single -hour concentration by 10%.27 There are residences located approximately 50 meters away from the Project boundary. The single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 3.618 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meter downwind.28Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.362 µg/m3for construction. We calculated the excess cancer risk for infant receptors using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the SCAQMD. Consistent with OEHHAguidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.29 According to the updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the first two years of life, which represents the infantile stage of life. Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used 95cn percentile breathing rates for infants.30 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1(mg/kg-day)., and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below. C,ir _ Concentration DBR Daily breathing rate EF `y —_�Hosure Frequency ED ESTosure Duration_ AT _ Averaging Time _ Inhaled Dose _ CPF Cancer Potencv Factor µg/nt3 - _-- 0.362 L./kg-day 1090 clays/year -A_ _350 years 0.578 _ days 25550 L?1&Lk d x)._. _ 3.1E-06 _ 1/(mg/kg-day) 1.1 ASF Age Sensiti,,dty Factor _ _ _ 10 Cancer Risk _ 3.44E-05 The excess cancer risk to infants during Project construction for the sensitive receptors located 50 meters away is approximately 34.4 in one million. As demonstrated above, the infantile exposure for the sensitive receptor exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one MD:sb.1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2076-01.2 E6-E8 Pg415 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 27 million. As a result, a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by ,Project construction using site -specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules. It should be noted that our analysis represents a screening -level health risk assessment, which is known to be more conservative, and tends to err on the side of health protection.31The purpose of a screening -level health risk assessment, however, is to determine if a more refined health risk assessment needs to be conducted. If the results of a screening -level health risk are above applicable thresholds, then the Project needs to conduct a more refined health risk assessment that is more representative of site specific concentrations. Our screening -level health risk assessment demonstrates that construction of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact. As a result, a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to examine the air quality impacts generated by Project construction using site - specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules. An EIR must be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project's health risk impact, and should include additional mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less than -significant level. Without a refined health risk assessment and mitigation addressing the findings of such an assessment, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may lead to significant public health impacts due to DPM emissions. Response to SWAPE Comment 7: SWAPE wrongfully asserts that "Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated." As stated previously in Response to Comment 3 above, SWAPE employed methodology to estimate construction -based risk that is not endorsed or approved by SCAQMD. SWAPE's construction -based HRA is flawed as it uses incorrect data for inputs into AERSCREEN. SWAPE's comment on page 11 (Attachment A Page 17) states the project's construction is to occur over a 211-day period; however, as shown in the CalEEMod output and described in the AQR, the project's 5-day per week construction schedule is only 174 days (10 days for site prep, 40 days for grading, 80 days for building construction, 20 days for paving, and 24 days for architectural coating). SWAPE also state that the project uses 21 pieces of construction equipment; whereas the CaIEEMod output indicates that the project will in fact use a total of 31 pieces of equipment; SWAPE also said that the project will generate 384 pounds of DPM over the incorrect number of construction days (SWAPE used 211 days, rather than 174 days). Using the proper number of construction days demonstrates that the project will generate a total of 0.1774 tons, which is only 354.8 lbs. Furthermore, SWAPE's analysis contains other flaws. It did not use the project -specific emissions factor (0.08478 tons/year) for onsite construction equipment, which is appropriate, because there will be overlapping construction phases of building MD:sblRK12540.doc JN: 2015-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg416 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 28 construction, paving and architectural coating. The project's onsite emissions for grading was slightly less, 0.0663 tons/year, so the higher emissions rate should be used (for an analysis of worst -case impacts). SWAPE's analysis also used an exposure frequency of 211 days, when the entire construction period only lasts 174 days. The overlapping construction phase lasts 124 days and grading only lasts 40 days; therefore, the exposure calculated by the commenter is over -estimated, resulting in incorrect risk impact values. As SWAPE's calculations are based on incorrect data, the results will also be incorrect and incorrectly over -estimate the risk. SWAPE's incorrect analysis does not support a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental impact. Additionally SCAQMD does not require an HRA assessment of construction -related TAC emissions for CEOA projects. At a SCAQMD CalEEMod workshop, Michael Krause of SCAQMD reiterated that fact and also stated that impacts of construction -related TAC, which is derived from particulate matter (PM-10), can be addressed via the Localized Significance Threshold Analysis. If the project meets the LST threshold for construction -related PM-10 emissions, then the project would not be anticipated to exceed any TAC thresholds during construction emissions either. The project does not exceed any LST threshold. Therefore, per current SCAQMD guidance and HRA methodology, Impacts are considered to be less than significant. No further analysis is required or warranted. SWAPE Comment 8: Additional Mitigation Available to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Our health risk assessment demonstrates that, when Project activities are modeled correctly, construction -related DPM emissions would result in significant air quality and health risk impacts. Therefore, additional mitigation measures must be identified and incorporated in an EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) levels, as well as reduce Criteria Air Pollutants such as particulate matter.az Diesel particulate matter ("DPM") is a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion, and is emitted by on -road vehicles and by off -road construction equipment. Mitigation for criteria pollutant emissions should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction emissions. Limit Construction Equipment Idling Beyond Regulation Requirements Heavy duty vehicles will idle during loading/unloading and during layovers or rest periods with the engine still on, which requires fuel use and results in emissions. The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") Heavy -Duty Vehicle Idling Emissions Reduction Program MD:sblRK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg417 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 29 limits idling of diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles to five minutes. Reduction in idling time beyond the five minutes required under the regulation would further reduce fuel consumption and thus emissions. The Project applicant must develop an enforceable mechanism that monitors the idling time to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures The Northeast Diesel Collaborative ("NEDC") is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures: 33 • All diesel onroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines that meet EPA 2007 onroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or the California Air Resources Board (CARB)35to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent. • All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent. • All diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines meeting EPATier4 nonroad emission standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent for engines 50 horse power (hp) and greater and by a minimum of 20 percent for engines less than 50 hp. • All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra -low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blenc136approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less. Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines The N EDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA's newer standards is limited.37 Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.38These actions include but are not limited to: • Repowering equipment (i.e. replacing older engines with newer, cleaner engines and leaving the body of the equipment intact). Engine repower may be a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy when a vehicle or machine has a long useful life and the cost of the engine does not approach the cost of the entire vehicle or machine. Examples of good potential replacement candidates include marine vessels, locomotives, and large construction machines.39Older diesel vehicles or machines can be repowered with newer diesel engines or in some cases with engines that operate on alternative fuels (see section "Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment" MD:sblRK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg418 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 30 for details). The original engine is taken out of service and a new engine with reduced emission characteristics is installed. Significant emission reductions can be achieved, depending on the newer engine and the vehicle or machine's ability to accept a more modern engine and emission control system. It should be noted, however, that newer engines or higher tier engines are not necessarily cleaner engines, so it is important that the Project Applicant check the actual emission standard level of the current (existing) and new engines to ensure the repower product is reducing emissions for P M 10. 40 • Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards. Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders. Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.41 Replacements often require some re - engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically there are benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.42 Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Equipment PM emissions from alternatively -fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit devices for engine exhaust after -treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation.43 Below is a table, prepared by the EPA, that summarizes the commonly used retrofit technologies and the typical cost and emission reductions associated with each technology." It should be noted that actual emissions reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications. MD:sblRK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg419 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 31 .Typical Emissions Reductions (percent). ` - Technology TyPlcal Costs ($)- .:: .- . Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) 20-40 - 40-70 40-60 Material: $600-$4,000 Installation: 1-3 hours Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 85-95 - BS-95 50-9D Mated 1: $B4O00-$50,000 Installation: 6-8 hours Partial Diesel Particulate Filter Material: $4,000-$6,000 (pDPF) up to 60 40.75 10-60 Installation: 6-8 hours Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) - up to 75 - - $10,000420,000; Urea $0.80/gat Closed Crankcase Ventilation (CCV) varies - - - - Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) - 25-40 - - Lean NO. Catalyst (LNC) - 5-40 - - $6,500-$10,000 Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures45 report also proposes the use of electric and/or hybrid construction equipment as a way to mitigate criteria pollutant emissions, such as particulate matter. When construction equipment is powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion are replaced with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. Furthermore, when construction equipment is powered by hybrid -electric drives, emissions from fuel combustion are also greatly reduced and criteria air pollutants would be 100% reduced for equipment running on electricity. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation46 and Komptech USA47, which specialize in the mechanical processing equipment like grinders and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid - electric drives is also commercially available from companies such as Caterpillar48. For example, Caterpillar reports that during an 8-hour shift, its D7E hybrid dozer burns 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional dozer while achieving a 10.3 percent increase in productivity. The D7E model burns 6.2 gallons per hour compared to a conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour.49 Fuel usage and savings are dependent on the make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should calculate project -specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per hour. Institute a Heavy -Duty Off -Road Vehicle Plan CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measuresso report recommends that the Project Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg420 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 32 The system should include strategies such as requiring hour meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Specifically, prior to the construction of a Project the contractor should submit a certified list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. 51The list should include the following: sz • Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment. • Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation. • For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour -meter reading on installation date. Implement a Constriction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measuressa report recommends that the Project Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Specifically, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a report prior to bringing said equipment on site that includes: sa • Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. • The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, and EPA/CARB verification number/level. • The Certification State ments5signed and printed on the contractor's letterhead. Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a monthly report that, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: se • Hour -meter readings on arrival on -site, the first and last day of every month, and on off -site date. • Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. • Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: o Source of supply o Quantity of fuel o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight). MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg421 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 33 In addition to those measures, we also recommend that the City require the Applicant to implement the following mitigation measures, called "Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,"57 that are recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District ("SMAQMD"): 1. The project representative shall submitto the lead agency and District a comprehensive inventory of all off -road construction equipment, equal to or greaterthan 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. • The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. • The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on - site foreman. • This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off -road equipment. • The District's Equipment List Form can be used to submit this information. • The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, exceptthat an inventoryshall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. 2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency and District demonstrating that the heavy-duty off -road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet -average 20% NOx reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. • This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory. • Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. • The District's Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction. 3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off -road diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. MD:sb1RK12540.dcc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg422 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 34 • Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately. Non -compliant equipment will be documented and a summary provided to the lead agency and District monthly. • A visual survey of all in -operation equipment shall be made at least weekly. • A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. 4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or regulations. When combined together, these measures offer a cost-effective way to incorporate lower -emitting equipment into the Project's construction fleet, which subsequently, reduces particulate matter emissions released during Project construction. An EIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions. Furthermore, the Project Applicant needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval to ensure that the Project's construction -related emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Response to SWAPE Comment 8: SWAPE wrongfully asserts that Additional Mitigation Available to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions and GHG emissions are required. As there are no significant impacts during either the construction or operation of the project for any pollutant, no additional mitigation required. See Response to SWAPE Comments 1 through 7 above. Comment 9: Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions The IS evaluates the Project's greenhouse gas (GHG) impact by comparing the Project's estimated GHG emissions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) screening level threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e/year). Based off this analysis, the IS determines that since the Project's GHG emissions are approximately 2,527 MT CO2e/ year, which is below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e, the Project would have a less than significant GHG impact (Air Quality Study, pp. 7-1). While the IS's method of evaluation is correct, as discussed in the sections above, the IS's CalEEMod model relies upon incorrect input parameters to estimate the Project's criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions, MD: sb/RK 12540. doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg423 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 35 resulting in an underestimation of Project emissions. Therefore, we find the IS's quantitative GHG analysis to be incorrect and unreliable for determining Project significance. As previously stated, the IS's GHG analysis relies upon a flawed CaIEEMod model to determine the significance of the Project's GHG impact. Therefore, in an effort to more accurately evaluate the proposed Project's GHG impact, we conducted a simple analysis using the emission estimates provided in our updated CalEEMod model and SCAQMD guidance. Based on the results of our analysis, discussed below, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed Project may have a significant GHG impact. As such, an EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project's GHG impact, and additional, feasible mitigation should be applied to the Project in an effort to mitigate the Project's GHG emissions to the maximum extent possible. As described in the SCAQMD's Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans, it is recommended that the proposed Project quantify the Project's indirect and direct GHG emissions, and compare these emissions to a screening level threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. Although the City of Rancho Cucamonga has not formally adopted the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, this threshold is designed forapplication atthe project level and thus provides a relevant way of determining the significance of the Project's GHG emissions. The SWAPE model's annual emissions demonstrate that construction of the Project would generate 24 MT COze per year (when amortized over 30 years) and operation of the Project would generate a total of 4,734 MT CO2e per year. When the Project's amortized construction emissions and operational emissions from the SWAPE model are combined, we find that the Project's GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold (see table below). MD:sb/RK72540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg424 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 36 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Proposed Project Emission Source (MT COTE) Mobile (Trucks) 3,104 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 455 Energy - Electricity 643 Energy - Natural Gas 120 Area 0.02 Water 301 Waste 111 Amortized Construction Emissions 24 Project Total 4,758 Significance Threshold 3,000 1 Exceed? Yes As you can see in the table above, when we compare the updated emissions estimated by SWAPE to the SCAQMD's recommended threshold of 3,000 MT CO:e/yr, we find that the Project's emissions would exceed this threshold, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact. The results of this analysis provide substantial evidence that when the Project's emissions are modeled correctly, the Project's GHG emissions would increase and result in a more severe GHG impact than what was previously identified in the IS. Therefore, a Project -specific EIR must be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project's GHG impact, and additional mitigation should be implemented where necessary, as is required by CEQA. Response to SWAPE Comment 9: SWAPE wrongfully asserts that there is a "Failure to Adequately Evaluate Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions." This is wholly incorrect because the SWAPE CalEEMod analysis is flawed. It is based on an assumption of a land use that does not comport with what the project actually is, together with the use of a non -City -approved fleet mix. SWAPE is asserting that the project will be a refrigerated warehouse, which is incorrect and results in an over -estimation of energy -related emissions. Furthermore, the methodology employed by SWAPE, where the truck portion of the mobile sources and car portion of the mobile sources are separated out, analyzed independently, then added back together again, is not an SCAQMD- approved or required method for analyzing warehouse -type projects and incorrectly over -estimates emissions. MD:sb!RK 12540. doc IN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8Pg425 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 37 The AQ-GHG analysis, as is currently stands, is an accurate representation of the project, which entails the construction and operation of 235, 620 square feet (SF) of warehouse space, approximately 2.1 acres on -site roads/paving, 65,132 square feet (SF) of landscaping, and a parking lot provided for a total of 317 vehicles. As shown on page 31 of the IS-MND, the project's GHG emissions total 2,527.26 MTCO2e/year and remain below the SCAQMD and CAP screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. See responses to SWAPE comments 1 through 8 above. Comment 10: Additional Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project's operational NO, and GHG emissions may present a potentially significant air quality impact. In an effort to reduce these emissions, we identified several additional mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project. Additional mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce operational NOxand GHG emissions include, but are not limited to, the following: • Use passive solar design, such as: 59,60 o Orient buildings and incorporate landscaping to maximize passive solar; heating during cool seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons; and o Enhance natural ventilation by taking advantage of prevailing winds. • Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. • Develop and follow a "green streets guide' that requires: o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt; o Installation of permeable pavement to allow for storm water infiltration; and o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection.ei • Implement Project design features such as: o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight; o Install high-albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane; o Install high -efficiency HVAC with hot -gas reheat; o Install formaldehyde -free insulation; and o Use recycled -content gypsum board. • Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Meet "reach" goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use. • Maximize the use of solar energy including solar panels. • Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. MD: sblRK 12540. doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg426 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 38 • Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. • Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. • Use CARB-certified or electric landscaping equipment in project and tenant operations; and introduce electric lawn, and garden equipment exchange program. • Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to infiltrate on -site. In addition to the measures discussed above, the SCAQMD has previously recommended additional mitigation measures for operational NOx emissions that result primarily from truck activity emissions, which would also reduce the Project's operational GHG emissions. Measures recommended for the Waterman Logistic Center that are also applicable for this Project's commercial uses include:ez • Provide electric vehicle charging stations that are accessible for trucks. Provide electrical hookups at the onsite loading docks and at the truck stops for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. • Provide a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) between truck traffic and sensitive receptors. • Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the facility. • Design the site such that any check -in point for trucks is well inside the facility to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility. • On -site equipment should be alternative fueled. • Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization. • Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas. • Should the proposed Project generate significant emissions, the Lead Agency should require mitigation that requires accelerated phase -in for non -diesel powered trucks. For example, natural gas trucks, including Class 8 HHD trucks, are commercially available today. Natural gas trucks can provide a substantial reduction in emissions, and may be more financially feasible today due to reduced fuel costs compared to diesel. In the Final CECtA document, the Lead Agency should require a phase -in schedule for these cleaner operating trucks to reduce project impacts. Finally, additional, feasible mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels.ea GHG emissions are produced during fuel combustion, and are emitted by on -road vehicles and by off -road equipment. Therefore, to reduce the Project's mobile -source GHG emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made. • Neighborhood/Site Enhancements MD:sb/RK72540.doc JN: 2076-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg427 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 39 o Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving less and thus a reduction in VMT. The project should provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project should minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls, landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation should be eliminated. • Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (On -Site) o Incorporating bicycle lanes, routes, and shared -use paths into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments can reduce VMTs. These improvements can help reduce peak -hour vehicle trips by making commuting by bike easier and more convenient for more people. In addition, improved bicycle facilities can increase access to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the "catchment area" of the transit stop or station and increasing ridership. Bicycle access can also reduce parking pressure on heavily -used and/or heavily -subsidized feeder bus lines and auto -oriented park -and -ride facilities. • Limit Parking Supply o This mitigation measure will change parking requirements and types of supply within the Project site to encourage "smart growth" development and alternative transportation choices by project residents and employees. This can be accomplished in a multi -faceted strategy: Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements Creation of maximum parking requirements Provision of shared parking • Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost o Unbundling separates parking from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost from the property cost. This removes the burden from those who do not wish to utilize a parking space. Parking should be priced separately from home rents/purchase prices or office leases. • Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program- Voluntary or Required o Implementation of a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program with employers will discourage single -occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The main difference between a voluntary and a required program is: Monitoring and reporting is not required No established performance standards (i.e. no trip reduction requirements) MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg428 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 40 o The CTR program should provide employees with assistance in using alternative modes of travel, and provide both "carrots' and "sticks" to encourage employees. The CTR program should include all of the following to apply the effectiveness reported by the literature: Carpooling encouragement Ride -matching assistance Preferential carpool parking Flexible work schedules for carpools Half time transportation coordinator Vanpool assistance Bicycle end -trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers) • Provide Ride -Sharing Programs o Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project should include a ride -sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. The project can promote ride -sharing programs through a multi -faceted approach such as: Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride -sharing vehicles Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides • Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program o This project can provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to incentivize the use of public transport. The project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project. • Provide End of Trip Facilities o Non-residential projects can provide "end -of -trip" facilities for bicycle riders including showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces. End - of -trip facilities encourage the use of bicycling as a viable form of travel to destinations, especially to work. End -of trip facilities provide the added convenience and security needed to encourage bicycle commuting. • Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules o Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. • Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing MD:sb1RK12540.doc 1N: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg429 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 41 o The project can implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options Event promotions Publications • Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program o The project can provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride -share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. The project should provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles. • Implement Car -Sharing Program o This project should implement a car -sharing project to allow people to have on -demand access to a shared fleetof vehicles on an as -needed basis. User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees. The car -sharing program could be created through a local partnership or through one of many existing car -share companies. Car -sharing programs may be grouped into three general categories: residential- or citywide -based, employer -based, and transit station -based. Transit station -based programs focus on providing the "last -mile" solution and link transit with commuters' final destinations. Residential -based programs work to substitute entire household based trips. Employer -based programs provide a means for business/day trips for alternative mode commuters and provide a guaranteed ride home option. • Provide Employer -Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle o This project can implement an employer -sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees' commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer -sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer's purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. • Implement Bike -Sharing Program o This project can establish a bike -sharing program to reduce VMTs. Stations should be at regular intervals throughout the project site. MD:sb/RK12540.doc IN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg430 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 42 • For example, Paris' bike -share program places a station every few blocks throughout the city (approximately 28 bike stations/square mile). • Price Workplace Parking o The project should implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives. o Though similar to the Employee Parking "Cash -Out" strategy, this strategy focuses on implementing market rate and above market rate pricing to provide a price signal for employees to consider alternative modes for their work commute. • Implement Employee Parking "Cash -Out" o The project can require employers to offer employee parking "cash - out." The term "cash -out" is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to the employer. When combined together, these measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during Project operation. An EIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality and GHG analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce operational emissions to below thresholds. Furthermore, the Project Applicant also needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation ofthese measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project's operational emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Response to SWAPE Comment 10: SWAPE wrongfully asserts that the Project's operational NOx and GHG emissions may present a potentially significant air quality impact. SWAPE's analysis is flawed (see responses to SWAPE comments 1 through 9 above). As stated previously, all project -related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts are less than significant.. Because the IS/MND concludes that there are no significant unavoidable impacts, no additional mitigation is required. MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg431 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 43 Blum I Collins Comments for Noise Comment 1: You claim the impact from construction noise will not be significant based on your consultant's statements that (1) noise levels will diminish from the construction site at 6 dBA per doubling of distance, and (2) the City's construction noise is exempted by ordinance. The first assertion does not provide substantial evidence for a conclusion that noise impacts will be less than significant: your consultant notes that some pieces of construction equipment you undoubtedly will use have a noise level of 92 or 95 dB A at 50 feet (see Noise Impact Analysis, Table 6); therefore, at 200 feet the noise can still reach 80 dBA, and as you note, the nearest apartments are 170 feet away. The second statement does not provide substantial evidence for a conclusion that construction noise will have a less than significant impact either: Municipal Code § 17.66.050(D) (4) says construction noise is exempt from regulation when noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent residential property line. Noise levels will reach 80 dBA or higher when only one of many pieces of construction equipment is in use. There is therefore substantial evidence to support a fair argument there will be a significant impact, and an EIR is required. Response to Comment 1: The residences to the south of the project are located outside the City of Rancho Cucamonga and are located within the City of Ontario limits. According to the Ontario Municipal Code Title 5, Section 5-29.06, construction noise would be considered exempt and would occur within the allowable times outlined in Section 5-29.09. Therefore, the project's construction noise levels would be considered consistent with the City of Ontario's municipal noise ordinance and is less than significant to the residences to the south. There are no sensitive land uses to the immediate west (Utica Street) therefore the impact is less than significant to said property line/land uses. Beyond Utica Street (further west) the land is zoned industrial. Land uses to the north and east consists of office buildings. The nearest office building to the north is located approximately 300 feet north of the project site's property line. The nearest office building to the east is located approximately 280 feet to the east of the project site's eastern property line. Our response therefore will focus on the potential construction noise impact to the existing uses to the north and east and to demonstrate the noise level during construction MD:sb1RK72540.doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg432 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 44 Section 17.66.050(C4) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga noise ordinance outlines the City's construction noise ordinance and states the following: Section 17.66.050(C4): 4. Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities; a. When adjacent to 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 anytime 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 commercial or industrial uses, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA when measured at the property line. Existing ambient measurement data indicates that the existing site and surrounding area experience average noise levels ranging between 53.1 dBA to 61.8 dBA and maximum noise levels reaching 81.5 dBA. The existing ambient condition at times exceeds the City's noise ordinance. Construction staging would occur approximately 3'00 to 350 feet from northern and eastern property lines. At these distances the projected construction noise level would range between 66 to 69 dBA and would not exceed the City's 70 dBA limit at the property line for commercial uses. RK utilized reference noise level measurement data found in Table 6 which outlines typical construction noise levels for various construction equipment. Appendix A (within this response to comments) outlines the calculated construction noise levels to the nearest sensitive receptors during the various stages of construction and utilizes multiple pieces of equipment (not just a single piece of equipment). As previously discussed, existing office buildings to the north and east are located an additional 280 to 300 feet further from the property line. The noise levels would further dissipate by an additional 6 dB (inverse square law) below the levels outlined above to 60 — 63 dBA. The inverse square law states that, in a free field the sound MD:sb1RK12540.doc JN: 2076-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg433 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 45 intensity of a point source drops by 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. The impact would be below the City's noise limit and therefore no additional mitigation is required. Comment 2: On operational noise, your consultant apparently modeled sound inputs from "the trucks' diesel engines, exhaust systems, braking, and forklifts." This excludes major sources of noise that come from distribution centers, such as hitching and unhitching of trailers, trash compactors, and back-up beepers: noises known to be disturbing to residents hundreds of feet away from distribution centers. See Attachment C (combined comments of multiple residents on the potential noise from the Sycamore Canyon Business Park. Response to Comment 2: The noise study addressed all potential noise sources associated with the loading/unloading area and the trailer parking area by either modeling the area as an area source or a parking lot. The input noise level used within the assessment was, provided in Appendix E (of the technical noise study) and is provided in third octave data as well as parking lot information. An area source calculation modeled the unloading/loading noise level over the surface area of the loading docks and assumed a noise level of approximately 78 dBA every three (3) feet across the surface area. This noise level would be considered conservative, as this assumes there is a noise source (of 78 dBA) every three (3) feet when in reality, the noise associated with unloading/loading is intermittent, varies and can occur anywhere within the loading/unloading area. As it relates to hitching/unhitching, SoundPlan modeling input parameters accounts for noise associated with truck station/parking lots and this option was selected within the input parameters. Therefore, the calculated output noise levels accurately reflect the estimated noise levels associated with project operations. Therefore, no further analysis is required. As it relates to Attachment C (for the Sycamore Canyon Project), that project is significantly larger in scale (over 1.1 million square feet of building) when compared to this project (approximately 200,000 square feet of building) and is not similar in project layout, geographical conditions and/or truck trip information. The Sycamore Canyon project had residential land use directly adjacent (abutted) to the industrial land use. This project has an arterial roadway separating residences from industrial MD sb/RK 12540. doc JN: 2016-2016-01.2 E6—E8 Pg434 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 13, 2017 Page 46 and loading/unloading is not directly facing residences. Therefore, a comparison of that project to this project is not a considerable comparison. It should be noted that the Sycamore Canyon project was approved by the City of Riverside and is currently under review. RK Engineering Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this response to comments letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Q. \'-, \--1 Robert Kahn, P.E. Founding Principal Registered Civil Engineer 20285 Registered Traffic Engineer 0555 Attachment MD:sb1RK12540.doc IN: 2016-2016-01.2 0A4iJ �kard�'� Mike Dickerson, INCE Air/Noise Specialist E6—E8 Pg435 Appendix A Construction Noise Calculations E6-E8 Pg436 Activity L., at 350 feet dBA Grading 69 Building Construction 64 Paving 66 Equipment Summary Reference (dBA) 50 ft Lmax Rock Drills 96 Jack Hammers 82 Pneumatic Tools 85 Pumps 8o Dozers 85 Scrappers 87 Haul Trucks 88 Cranes 82 Portable Generators 8o Rollers 80 Tractors 80 Front -End Loaders 86 Hydraulic Excavators 86 Graders 86 Air Compressors 86 Trucks 86 E6-E8 Pg437 Pp€26S aaa<ca2a9� xA��„aaa < L 9 � c a �amehf^�'F�$36$��aaaa�o'o o.'e$$$r°'v Y,wr6FF V J a' 9;!P raSee a a 266.��e�$$$3 55 N .A 0 S V� RR b W p p O 7 - J J �?s a � � o'e`a@� �rnrrrrr. i-�� F$ac rr666��5 o'��aaa < v<� m mev Y v ma>•.n3.'m'o,ae..?'r' F'r° rp-:^ T rPF-'R-on RS eS 12 663S2 �aa 9v� = .Y n � w e v o e Ye' e e e e e e e e c r< T `I W ��!! OO CC ti ♦I tl �. �. �" T Y Y� F a a 6 i^ f� n �W' m? P O O O 2 1 O n 9 n E E a E6—E8 Pg438 r� �9m .r s _NK 5,vbinr7.��Y^,nr.vinvFn- y Z e v _ -ram G �G f r r a��vo'a e V Jb $,nNNNnn.'Onv .N.,nNNv. 3,v ri v'v Vim mad - u J 5, $w�Y�v ". _v -i -Cf _ rrrnnP�3�a�a�v.:Vbv�$e;„v.vnNr.nr.��s _ 7 p i J 0 3 [ r J J `vJ G C Q i vr, F•• n r n f n r€ y b b J C :. a ,yv b V N Fp m V Y n P .G b J$$ p C 7 9 Yr 0 - 3 sGmar���r��-ff�_<J��<Jsaaa��bssaaaa 9 � q .fix 99wrPzrr-€€€��a���aaaaaaeea Y Q fj J rP=P 991 € 21my 311�J;aaaa^<< Y v mx�e�F��a�:^���vo€ee�a�e��aea�aaa 9px Y c 1 J --==eaece0000ecceec=ocoovcceea000a E E J o M1 b a E E6—E8 Pg439 m rn I W to A A O Pacing anlMe level CakulMNnn Prinnn hn kmmmlion of Avim Nlrnmliun rte dlaneMCl Ilisunce er Ip lJll.4 I.uea' I<eeelrinr GninnA Sldehlloy C'MkrrbuJ (dH41 Vo. C ......... Ikrri lino 50 5901.nuv pnr min Ibsmi I61 f.Rrc1 6111AI I n L !;m I PY\mnl Nn 411 VI I. MIA $SU IINYNa'3F Rolkn Mn - Jn :11 930 79.41 WHMMMMI _ fto.' V311 •V l� NINp1MN1(1 Sur¢: aK lul•_M 14_ Lwu' 'I4La, M7 L. 122 1. IIM I- gmxuyeNme my aMMav Ma6rrytu 6gaahCv Ulnrwr dHA- A-xei&Cdlh.i6IS Lmn� alm lmum Lmel Len -I uuiavhm I eul Feet 61nen G..W Elket 51v Shklding Lat dRA I Albs Shktdi., Lat d11A 2 dRA Shielding Lai dRA 3'IRA Shkidinl; LaldBA 4 dRA Shielding LegdRA 5 dRA Shielding Lag dRA 6 dRA Slltelding Leq dRA 7 d0A Shielding 1.egdRA 8 dRA SkkldinR Le di/\ 4 dBA Shiddirr8 LegdRA III BA Shiddiug Leq dRA I I dRA Shieldi4g LegdRA 12 dRA Shiddlllg LN dDA 13 dRA Shielding Leg dRA IJ dltA 9hiddtrl_ Leq AIIA 15 dRA ShielALlg Leq dRA 50 15.2 U.5 87 86 85 AJ 83 82 81 So 'R -' 76 75 -1 60 18.3 0.5 85 84 83 F2 31 80 79 78 76 74 73 ?1 70 10 113 U.5 83 82 NI Nn 79 �8 -7 '6 ^5 '4 1 p 69 68 80 24.4 0.5 82 81 MU 19 78 17 C6 75 11 71 70 69 6P 67 90 27.4 0.5 4p 70 '8 76 °5 71 71 '0 69 68 67 66 65 I00 30.5 0.5 79 78 -fi 5 74 73 71 'u n9 felt 67 66 fi5 64 110 33.5 0.5 73 77 '6 'S 7; 71 72 '1 70 69 64 67 66 65 0.1 63 120 36.6 0.5 77 7n 74 73 72 71 70 69 fie 07 66 65 64 63, 62 130 30.6 0.5 76 'S -4 73 72 71 70 69 68 li7 b6 65 N 63 fit 61 140 42.1 0.5 76 - '4 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 fi^_ 61 150 45.7 0.5 ;5 72 71 70 69 68 67 (A 65 64 63 62 61 Q 10 48.8 0.5 74 '3 71 70 69 (A 67 66 65 63 63 62 61 WI 59 170 51.9 0.5 14 S3 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 W 63 62 61 60 59 18(1 54.9 0.5 12 'I 70 CA 68 67 66 65 fiJ 63 62 61 60 59 58 1% 57.9 0.5 72 '1 70 69 68 67 66 0 64 fit 62 61 60 59 58 17 '_M 61.0 0.5 12"1 10 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 6_' 61 60 59 58 57 22n 0.0 0.5 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 fii 63 02 61 60 59 58 57 56 220 67.1 0.5 71 70 64 68 61 66 65 64 65 62 61 N 59 58 57 56 230 70.1 0.5 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 240 73.1 0.5 70 0 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 250 76.2 0.5 69 68 67 60 65 61 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 260 79.2 03 69 65 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 35 54 270 82.3 03 68 67 66 65 64 63 61_ 61 60 59 58 37 56 55 54 53 280 95.3 0.5 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 38 57 $6 55 54 53 2" 98.4 0.5 fib 67 66 65 61 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 35 54 53 300 01.4 0.5 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 54 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 310 W.3 0.5 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 h0 59 58 57 56 55 A 33 52 320 07.5 03 67 66 65 61 63 62 61 (4 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 339 100.6 0.5 66 05 64 63 62 61 60 34 58 51 56 55 54 53 52 51 340 103.6 U t 66 65 M 63 6'_ 61 60J 59 58 57 56 55 51 33 52 51 3W 106.7 0.5 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 5A 57 50 5.9 54 53 5'_ 51 360 IWT 0.$ 65 M 63 62 kl fA 5y 58 57 Sfi 55 $4 33 52 tl Sp 3]0 112.8 0.3 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 q5 54 53 52 51 50 E C O L O G I C A L S C I E N C E S October 19, 2017 Dominick Perez City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT. CEQA Response to Comments, 4th and Utica Avenue Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Dear Dominick: We offer the following comments as they relate to a letter from Blum Collins LLP dated May 22, 2017. They are specific to page 4 regarding Biological Resources as follows: Subtopic a. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in a local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Blum Collins LLP Comment 1: The site contains Delhi sands, and is therefore potential habitat to the endangered Delhi Sands Ftower-loving Fly. Your consultant has concluded that the fly would not be present because the area is covered in gravel and cement and the nearest fly was detected over 3 miles away. This is a fly. There are all sorts of reasons it may be present without have been detected. The entire area this fly occupies is 40 square miles, and the Delhi sands formation is 97% destroyed. Any appearance of these sands, and covering over them, is therefore significant. Ecological Sciences, Inc. Response: No characteristic constituent soil elements suitable to support DSFF are present. The site is isolated from know populations for some time. This species is not known to traverse developed areas and has been observed directly avoiding concrete, gravel, asphalt, or other impermeable surfaces. Moreover, observations such as the DSFFs apparent avoidance of dense (both native and non-native) vegetation (>75% coverage) or general avoidance of vegetation that is sparse or not present at all (<5% coverage) appear to suggest that DSFF generally select habitats with a combination of some vegetation, including several species of plants, and some open space with bare sand (Kiyani 1996). Our permitted biologist, Scott Cameron, has been conducting focused surveys and habitat assessments for this species under the authority of federal permit number TE-808242-8 for over 20 years. Further, based on conservation biology principles concerning demographics within small isolated populations (e.g., increases in demographic stochasticity and inbreeding depression), there is no viability of this site to support DSFF, nor would it ever be considered a viable property for preservation. Further, the USFWS wrote Ecological Sciences, Inc. Principal Biologist, Scott Cameron, an email dated November 30, 2016 stating the following: "Dear Mr. Cameron: We received your letter on October 19, 2016, requesting our review of an enclosed habitat assessment for the federally endangered Delhi Sands flower-lovin%fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis, DSF), on an approximately 11.86 acre site located north of 4 Street and the east of Utica Avenue in the City of 24307 Magic Mountain Pkvvy #538 ♦ Valencia, CA 91335 ♦ Office: 805.921.0583 805.415.9595 • email: scameron@ecosciencesinc.com EXHIBIT U E6—E8 Pg441 Fourth and Utica RTC October 19, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Assessor Parcel Number (021008278, 021008279, 021008284, 021008289, and 021008290). The assessment, dated September 21, 2016, was conducted by Ecological Sciences Inc. On June 9, 2016 Scott Cameron, a DSF permitted biologist, conducted a biological assessment of the parcel for DSF and burrowing owl (Athens cunicularia, BUOW). The project area is a former commercial site and has been highly degraded and disturbed. An abandoned concrete parking lot comprises the west and southern most portions of the site. The eastern portion of the site consists of gravels and non-native grassland which have be mowed and/or disced). A small detention basin is present in the northeast portion of the site. The entirety of the site is characterized by non-native ruderal plant species. Debris in the form of soil/asphalt and other trash dumping is present on site. Surrounding land uses include commercial/residential development and agricultural to the west. The project site is in an area mapped as containing Delhi Fine Sands; however, the soils are highly disturbed and compacted or paved as a result of development activity. Even though, native DSF indicator plant species are present, the scattered and highly disturbed site conditions on site area not consistent with habitat known or expected to support DSF. Based on our review of the assessment and site photos you provided and of digital imagery and other information in our files, we concur with the [Ecological Sciences] assessment's determination that the site is unsuitable for DSF. If you have any further questions, please contact me." Amanda Swaller Wildlife Biologist Palm Springs Fish & Wildlife Service Blum Collins LLP Comment 2: Regarding the burrowing owl, you did not protocol -level survey for them, so the fact that it was not detected is not dispositive. While your mitigation measures call for a survey according to California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") Staff Report, you do not provide for a qualified biologists until owls are discovered onsite. Surveys during the non -breeding season are not adequate, and you have not provided for breeding season surveys. See Staff Report at [page] 6, second paragraph (surveys during non -breeding season are "typically inconclusive"). Ecological Sciences, Inc. Response: The commenter provides no substantial evidence concerning why the burrowing owl might occupy this property. Further, the commenter does not purport to be a burrowing owl expert, and thus the comment does not constitute substantial evidence. Ecological Sciences has conducted hundreds of focused burrowing owl surveys over the past 25 years and are well versed with this species and habitat characteristics. We are well qualified to conduct such surveys and each of our surveys has been accepted by resource agencies. Our approach to conducting BUOW habitat assessments is consistent with resource agency protocol. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, March 7, 2012 clearly states: "Prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permit, if site preparation activities occur within potential burrowing owl habitat, a pre -construction burrowing owl/Initial Take and Avoidance Survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to construction to avoid any potential impacts to the species. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the State of California, Natural Resource Agency, CDFW, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (March 2012)." Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, March 7, 2012 clearly states: "Non -breeding season (1 September to 31 January) surveys may provide information on burrowing owl occupancy, but do not substitute for breeding season surveys because results are typically inconclusive. E6—E8 Pg442 145: R Fourth and Utica RTC October 19, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Burrowing owls are more difficult to detect during the non -breeding season and their seasonal residency status is difficult to ascertain. Burrowing owls detected during non -breeding season surveys may be year- round residents, young from the previous breeding season, pre -breeding territorial adults, winter residents, dispersing juveniles, migrants, transients or new colonizers. In addition, the numbers of owls and their pattern of distribution may differ during winter and breeding seasons. However, on rare occasions, non -breeding season surveys may be warranted (i.e., if the site is believed to be a wintering site only based on negative breeding season results)." Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, March 7, 2012 clearly states as it relates to Take Avoidance Surveys: "Field experience from 1995 to present supports the conclusion that it would be effective to complete an initial take avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the Detection Surveys section. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered by positive owl presence on the site where project activities will occur. The development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be informed by monitoring the burrowing owls. Burrowing owls may re -colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance." Blum Collins LLP Comment 3: You also define the avian nesting season as lasting from February 1 to August 31, which isn't accurate according to CDFW, which considers it to run from January 1 (due to raptors) to September 1. Ecological Sciences, Inc. Response: This comment does not provide any evidence that the Project may have a significant unavoidable impact. We fully understand and are well versed in the timing of the nesting bird season in southern California. That sentence in our report stated "typically February 1 to August 31". We understand and acknowledge that CDFW states "as early as January 1 for some raptors". Further, the difference between August 31 and September 1 is one day. A one -day disparity does not affect the accuracy of the report or its conclusions. Subtopic e. Will the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy? Blum Collins LLP Comment: Your arborist Report acknowledges there are 128 mature trees which will all be removed under the Project. Of these mature trees, 4 are heritage trees meaning they are 20 inches or greater in diameter at 4.5 feet. You propose to remove these trees, even though three are on the edge of the Project site. You say that as mitigation, each tree removed will be replaced with a tree of minimum 15- gallon size. Ecological Sciences, Inc. Response: While many nesting avian species are not protected by state or federal endangered species acts, native bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FINS). These sections prohibit take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. In order to avoid violation of the MBTA or CDFW Code sections, general guidelines suggest that project -related disturbances at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle (generally January 1 to September 1). Accordingly, surveys for potentially occurring nesting birds would be conducted on the subject site to evaluate potential impacts to native bird species prior to tree removing activities. Should eggs or fledglings be discovered, the nest cannot be disturbed (pursuant to CDFW guidelines) until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a stage that they can leave the nest on their own). Pre - construction surveys within suitable habitat should be conducted no more than 3 days prior to construction activities. E6—E8 Pg443 w'� 05D)Fourth and Utica RTC October 19, 2017 Page 4 of 4 The level of constraint that a sensitive biological resource would pose to potential development typically depends on the following criteria: (1) the relative value of that resource; (2) the amount or degree of impact to the resource; (3) whether or not impacts to the resource would be in violation of state and/or federal regulations or laws; (4) whether or not impacts to the resource would require permitting by resource agencies; and (5) the degree to which impacts on the resource would otherwise be considered "significant" under CEQA. On -site habitats have been assigned a low biological constraint rating based on the degree in which expected impacts to on -site resources would meet the criteria discussed above. This designation is primarily due to the high level of current and historic site disturbances/land uses resulting in low biological diversity (i.e., replacement and exclusion of most native species with just a few non-native species) and a low potential for special -status species to utilize or reside within areas proposed for development due to absence of suitable habitat. Site development would also not be expected to substantially alter the diversity of plants or wildlife in the area because of current degraded site conditions. The loss of these disturbance -related habitats would not substantially affect special -status resources or cause a population of sensitive plant or wildlife species to drop below self-sustaining levels. Removal of non-native tree cultivars in the absence of any active avian nests would not be considered significant under CEQA. Please contact me should you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Ecological Sciences, Inc. Scott D. Cameron Principal Biologist E6—E8 Pg444 engineering traffic engineering • transportation planning group, Me. acoustical engineering • parking studies air quality & greenhouse gas analysis October 13. 2017 Mr. Dominick Perez CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Response to Comments#2 for SCAQMD's Comments for the Fourth and Utica Warehouse Project — Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) received comments from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on 5/24/2017, The following responses are provided for the comments: Comment 1 Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Analyses SCAQMD staff is concerned that the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) has likely underestimated the cancer risk from the project. In the HRA, the Lead Agency used the AERMOD dispersion model to estimate DPM concentrations from the diesel vehicles generated by the project and used the 2015 revised OEHHA guidelines to estimate the health risks to sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the HRA based on the following comments. a. In the HRA, the Lead Agency used a 70-year average DPM emissions rate for the 30 years of exposure to estimate health risks. This is not an appropriate methodology to estimate emissions based on the 2015 revised OEHHA guidelines. The 2015 revised OEHHA guidelines acknowledge that children are more susceptible to the exposures to air toxics and have revised the way cancer risks are estimated to take this into account. Since the emissions from the project -generated trucks get cleaner with time due to existing regulations, it would not be appropriate to average out the emissions over a 70-year exposure duration since this would underestimate the health risks to children who would be exposed to higher DPM concentrations during the early years of project operation. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the DPM emissions for each year of operation be applied to each of the corresponding age bins (i.e. emissions from Year 1 of project operation should be used to estimate cancer EXHIBIT V 4000 westerly place, suite 280 newport beach, california 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 www.rkengineer.com E6—E8 Pg445 risks to the third trimester to 0 year age bin; Year 1 and 2 of project operation should be used to estimate the cancer risks to the 0 to 2 years age bins; and so on). b. Dock loading idling emissions were modeled as individual point sources at four idling locations along the planned loading docks (STCKI — 4). SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the HRA using a line volume source that spans the entire dock area to ensure that impacts are properly analyzed. c. Some of the receptors were placed within the volume source exclusion zone, and the results at these locations might not be accurate. This has likely caused the risk results for these receptors not be captured. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the HRA by using a greater number of smaller volume sources to avoid receptors within the volume source exclusion zone. d. The Lead Agency performed the HRA modeling on July 17, 2016 using EMFAC2011 to calculate emission factors. EMFAC2014 is the most recent available version (approved on December 30, 20141) and was available at the time of analysis. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use EMFAC2014 when revising the HRA. Response to Comment 1: a) and d) At the time of the original HRA analysis (July 14, 2016), the Mobile Source Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) HRA guidance available from SCAQMD stated to use the 70-year methodology. This methodology is the only methodology and guidance currently available at the SCAQMD website for CEQA-based mobile source toxics analyses'. Furthermore, personal communications with Lillian Wong (as detailed on page 8-1 of the AQR) showed that SCAQMD were planning on conducting working group sessions in early 2016 to discuss implementation of the OEHHA guidelines for CEQA. There was never any direction given by SCAQMD as to when the new OEHHA guidelines were to apply to CEQA projects within the Basin. The only direction given has been through this comment process. However, per SCAQMD's current recommendations ( in the comments above), the project was re -modeled in the latest version of AERMOD using EMFAC2014 emissions factors and the risk analyzed using the latest OEHHA methodology and the exposure scenarios and SCAQMD- approved breathing rates (as described in Table 9.1 of SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures, Attachment "M" for Permitting projects). The 30-year average emissions factors (for adult exposure) were derived for San Bernardino County for years 2017 to 2046, 14-year average factors (for child exposure during years 2-16) reflect emissions during the first 14 years of ' http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis RK: sblRK 12539. DOC JN: 2016-2016-02.3 E6—E8 Pg446 operation (2017 to 2031), the second 14 years of exposure (years 2032-2046) were also used for assessment of exposure during years 16 to 30, 2-year factors (for infant exposure) reflect years 2017 and 2018, and third trimester exposure used opening year (2017) emissions factors. The health risks for each of the above age scenarios were determined and the results are detailed in the revised AQR Section 8.4 and in Tables 21 through 26. The highest risk from project -related DPM is 2.43 in a million to infants and 4.41 in a million cumulative risk (from 3rd trimester to age 30), neither of which exceed the SCAQMD TAC threshold of 10 in a million. The HRA analysis has been revised to incorporate the emissions factors from EMFAC2014. However, as the non-HRA portion of the analysis used CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 (as at the time of the analysis, CalEEMod 2016.3.1 had not been released yet), which utilized EMFAC2011 to ascertain the criteria pollutant emissions for the project, the use of EMFAC2011 was a) more conservative (as the emissions factors were a little higher (especially for HHDT] than EMFAC2014, and b) the use of EMFAC2011 was acceptable, per guidance (personal communication) from Dr. Jillian Wong at SCAQMD. This slight update to the analysis merely amplifies the analysis in the IS-MND and AQR, does not affect the conclusions in the IS-MND and AQR, and does not require recirculation of the IS-MND. b) Modeling truck idling emissions as individual point sources at four idling locations along the planned loading docks (STCK1 — 4) is an accurate method for assessing the idling emissions of trucks that are not in motion. As the trucks are parked and the emissions are modeled at idle (0 mph), the trucks' exhaust stacks more realistically emit like a point source. The emissions from the point sources were evenly distributed along the entire loading dock to ensure that impacts were analyzed properly. As shown by Exhibits C and D, the blue line directly behind the loading dock area was modeled as a line volume source, to assess the impacts from vehicles in motion, maneuvering to enter the loading docks. Therefore the trucks' emissions have already been analyzed as volume sources. c) As the discrete receptors were supplemented by a Cartesian receptor grid, which also gave similar DPM concentrations at those receptor locations, it is unlikely that risks were not captured. However, per SCAQMD request, the receptors that were placed within the volume source exclusion zone were relocated within the building areas, which leads to a more conservative analysis. However, as shown by the results in Section 8.4 of the revised AQR, even with the relocation of the receptors, this relocation did not change the significance of the results (the cancer risk still did not exceed 10 in a million at any sensitive receptor location). This slight update to the analysis merely amplifies the analysis in the IS-MND and AQR, does not affect the conclusions in the IS-MND and AQR, and does not require recirculation of the IS- MND. RK: sblRK12539. DOC 1N: 2016-2016-02.3 E6—E8Pg447 Comment 2 Based on a review of Section 8.3.3 Meteorological Data of the Air Quality Study, three different air monitoring stations were discussed. However, it is unclear which air monitoring station or stations provided meteorological data. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency clarify which station or stations were used in the Final MND. Response to Comment 2: The text under Section 8.3.3 now reads as follows: "Meteorological data from the Air District's Upland monitoring site was selected for this modeling application. Data for the years 2008 to 2012 from SCAQMD's Upland air monitoring station (as that station is the closest to the site) was used in the assessment. Exhibit D shows a wind rose for the project area (Upland)." Comment 3: Siting Warehouses near Residences Based on the project description, the nearest sensitive receptors are approximately 1.4 mile to the south of the project. While SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions, there are concerns about the proximity of a warehouse to the existing residences and the potential long-term air quality impacts to the people living near the warehouse and along the truck routes as a result of increased truck activities. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use the California Air Resources Board's (CARE) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land -use decision making process. In CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, CARB recommends a buffer of at least 1,000 feet between land uses that will have 100 or more trucks per day. Response to Comment 3: It is unknown where SCAQMD obtained the information stating that the nearest sensitive receptor is 1.4 miles from the site. This is not accurate, as both the IS-MND and the AQR state that the closest sensitive receptors are approximately 160 feet south of the site. Per the SCAQMD MATES IV Carcinogenic Risk Interactive Map, the project site (and residential uses to the south of the site) are already located in an area with an ambient cancer risk of 1,321.39 in a million, which is mostly due to the proximity to the 1-10 and I-15 freeways. The highest risk from project -related DPM. is 2.43 in a million to infants and 4.41 in a million cumulative risk (from 3rd trimester to age 30), both of which are much lower than the ambient risk and the SCAQMD TAC threshold of 10 in a million. It is unclear what the creation of a buffer would accomplish when the project's DPM emissions do not represent a significant source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) to sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. As concluded in the RK: sb/RK 12539. DOC JN: 2016-2016-02.3 IS-MND and AQR, the project does not have any significant impacts on sensitive receptors, even at the reduced (correct) distance specified in the IS-MND and AQR. Comment 4 CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. In the event that the Lead Agency, after revising the HRA analysis based on the comments provided above, finds that the project would result in significant health risk impacts, SCAQMD staff recommends incorporating the following on -road mobile -source truck related mitigation measures in the Final MND, in addition to the mitigation measures 1) through 24). For more information on potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency, please visit SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook website... Response to Comment 4 As the project does not cause any significant unavoidable AQ-GHG or HRA-based impacts, no additional mitigation is required. Comment 5 Additional Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts (Other Area Sources) In addition to the mobile source mitigation measures identified above, the Lead Agency should incorporate the following onsite area source mitigation measures below as guidance to further reduce the project's operational air quality impacts... Response to Comment 5 As the project does not cause any significant unavoidable AQ-GHG or HRA-based impacts, no additional mitigation is required. RK Engineering Group, Inc, is pleased to provide this response to comment letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Robert Kahn, P.E. Founding Principal Registered Civil Engineer 20285 Registered Traffic Engineer 0555 RK: sb/RK 12539. DOC JN: 2016-2016-02.3 Mike Dickerson, INCE Air/Noise Specialist E6—E8 Pg449 FORM OF LETTER FROM GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE September OV , 2017 VIA E-MAIL Mayor L. Dennis Michael and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Email: city. elerk r@i cityofrc.us Candyce Burnett, Planning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Candyce.Burnett@CityofRC.us Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Nikki Cavazos; Assistant Planner Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 10500 Civic Center Drive Nikki.Cavazos@cityofrc.us Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Lois. Schrader(n;CityofRC.us Re: Notice of Support for Fourth & Utica Project ("Project") Dear Mayor Michael, Members of the City Council, Honorable Planning Commissioners, Ms. Cavazos, Ms. Burnett and Ms. Schrader: Golden State Environmental'& Social Justice Alliance ("GS") is pleased to support the Project. GS hereby rescinds its May 22, 2017 comment letter on the Project's Mitigated Negative Declaration. GS believes that the construction and operation of the Project will benefit the City, and that the Project has incorporated adequate mitigation measures to offset and reduce its potential effect on the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. The undersigned reserves the right to withdraw this letter of support if the Project is changed or other circumstances warrant it. GOLDEN STATE E IRONMENTAL & SOCIAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE By: 2sc7�h $✓�s�;� Its: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE EXHIBIT W E6—E8 Pg450 By: �� ✓3J�A+ G+i:itG�ois Its: 1159842.04 OC -.�- 376853-00001,10-3-17jcakp E6-E8Pg451 RESOLUTION NO. 17-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931 TO AMEND THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FAR FROM .35 TO .5 WITHIN AREA 5 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION A 232,058 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE LOGISTICS AND OFFICE BUILDING ON A PROPERTY COMPRISED OF FIVE (5) PARCELS WITH A COMBINED AREA 515,690 SQUARE FEET (11.84 ACRES) WHICH CURRENTLY CONTAINS REMNANTS OF AN ABANDONED PARKING LOT AND A VACANT PAD LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND UTICA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals 1. Charles Joseph Associates filed an application on behalf of IDS Real Estate Group for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of May, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the request of staff, the review of the application was continued to a date unspecific. 3. On the 8th day of November, 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. 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. 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 November 8, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a 515,690-square foot site located within the City at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue in Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan; and b. The site is bound on the east, north and northwest by office development. To the west of the site, across Utica Avenue, is an undeveloped vineyard. To the south and southwest of the site, across 4th Street within the City of Ontario, are two apartment complexes (Vintage Apartments and Camden Landmark Apartments). The zoning of the abutting properties to the north is Planning Area IV and east Planning Area V within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The zoning of E6—E8 Pg452 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-92 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931— CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 2 the properties to the west is Industrial Park (IP) District. The zoning of the property to the south is Urban Residential District (Ontario Center Specific Plan), which is within thejurisdiction of the City of Ontario; and C. This subject vacant property once contained an office building and parking lot that was part of a large industrial complex occupied by General Dynamics. The building has since been removed and the parking lot and on -site landscape have not been maintained; and d. The project involves a proposal to construct a 232,058-square foot warehouse logistics and office building (Design Review DRC2016-00670) and a proposal to remove four (4) existing heritage trees on the subject property (Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671); and e. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan (ELSP) consists of eleven (11) "Planning Areas". The project site is located within Planning Area 5. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted in this Planning Area is 35 percent (0.35). Based on the subject parcel's area of 515,690 square feet, the maximum floor area of the proposed industrial building would be 180,491 square feet. The proposed building has a floor area of 232,058 square feet that will result in a FAR of 44.9 percent (0.45); and f. The Specific Plan as implemented has been developed over time with office developments where a FAR of 35 percent (0.35) was appropriate because the footprint allowed for required parking to support the office land uses. Reducing the floor area of the building to comply with the current maximum FAR is uneconomical for the applicant's client. Furthermore, it is impractical as this results in leaving the subject property relatively unusable for any other purpose besides parking and landscaping, which is not necessary to support an industrial use; and g. The applicant is proposing to amend the ELSP to increase the FAR to 50 percent (0.50). Although this increase is greater than the amount the applicant currently needs, this will ensure that the building, once constructed, will continue to conform with the ELSP if future tenant(s) of the building need the flexibility to expand and/or create additional interior office area should their operation(s) require it; and h. The increase in the FAR would establish consistency with the maximum FAR permitted in the General Industrial (GI) and Industrial Park (IP) Districts which both have maximum FARs of 60 percent (0.60). It would also allow the subject property to be developed similarly to the adjacent property located to the west across Utica Avenue. The proposed amendment would apply only to Planning Area 5 of the ELSP. The FAR of all other Planning Areas within ELSP would be unchanged. 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 Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. General Plan Policy LU-3.7 encourages new development projects to build on vacant infill sites within a built -out area, and/or redevelop previously developed properties that are underutilized. The proposed industrial development is consistentwith the intent of the General Plan and proposed Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment; and E6—E8 Pg453 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-92 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931— CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 3 b. The land use and development regulations within the Specific Plan are comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning regulations contained in this Title. The current zoning regulations for the adjacent property to the west, which is located within the Industrial Park (IP) District, allows fora maximum FAR of 0.60. Therefore, the proposed Floor Area Ratio of 0.50 for the project is compatible with the land use regulations of the adjacent zoning district; and c. The administration and permit processes within the Specific Plan are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the Development Code. The amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan will not change the process in which development is processed and will therefore be consistent with the administration and permit processed prescribed within the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, togetherwith all written and oral reports included forthe environmental assessmentfor the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence thatthe 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 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, the 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 recommends the City Council adopt 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 recommends the City Council adopt 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 recommendation 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. E6—E8 Pg454 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-92 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 4 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 as shown in Attachment A. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 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 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E6—E8 Pg455 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development Standards of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan address eight factors which include. • General Provisions • Master Plan Requirements • Minimum Parcel Size • Setback Requirements • Landscape Requirements • Parking and Loading Requirements • Interim Uses • Performance Standards • Planning Area IX Recreational Amenities Table fii-6 summarizes the application of basic development standards on a planning area basis, including minimum parcel size, landscape area requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and performance standards. The setback requirements are determined in accordance with the street classification and particular side yard and rear yard conditions. TABLE 5-5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY ,Planning Arce _ :;tandnrds —_- 3I -- IV V VI VII Vill IX X Muarr.wa f-mc nmLie Rf Lsna:„ape Arr•.i r'., of N,t IWArino1 0 IU 1,.11:11, -I ch, II i�;.: ,,h.in. r. A A 9 i 5 1,, Mlaxilnum t°Innr ^rn't Baud AHii u.:I!7 0.30 0.60 0.3h (1.ro 03e 0.a.= I lrswimlial Deru.ly nl 21 24 Ur, 2430 .rd-, A,;t_ Ylt WIQ a rrrgi i4 devoinpM, 11; A MP I I In I:.ain. F Vi for the Planni n•) A,ei can incre 40 torA:L fJ 7. nur I'A.n le. •ae hate+ ii th i is o ;,l..I , i , r -i,i u:�x.: to mn,. id Wdi 0.," FAH rz on,; a� Me,. *nLro plamirg area .. -i 1 , .. r-;,r. i . "i, Masle, Plan Ceve!opmem Guidef�. an. Standards ATTACHMENT A E6-E8 Pg456 RESOLUTION NO. 17-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00670 FOR A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 232,058 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE LOGISTICS AND OFFICE BUILDING ON A VACANT SITE OF 11.84 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING AREA 5 OF THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND UTICA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNS: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 AND 90. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph Associates filed an application on behalf of IDS Real Estate Group for the approval of Design Review DRC2016-00670, 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 the 24th day of May 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the request of staff, the review of the application was continued to a date unspecific. 3. On the 8th day of November 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. 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. 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 meeting on November 8, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue; and b. The project site is comprised of five (5) vacant parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). The site is approximately 585 feet (east to west) by approximately 869 feet (north to south); and C. This site once contained an office building and parking lot that was part of a large industrial complex occupied by General Dynamics. The building has since been removed and the parking lot and on -site landscape have not been maintained. The existing land uses on, and E6—E8 Pg457 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-93 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00670 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 2 General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant/Abandoned Mixed Use Planning Area 5 (Empire Parking Lot Lakes Specific Plan) North Multi -tenant Office Mixed Use Planning Area 4 (Empire Developments Lakes Specific Plan) Vintage Apartments and Ontario Center Urban Residential District South Camden Landmark (City of Ontario) (Ontario Center Specific Apartments Plan — City of Ontario East Multi -tenant Office Mixed Use Planning Area 5 (Empire Developments Lakes Specific Plan) West Undeveloped Vineyard Industrial Park Industrial Park (IP) District d. The applicant proposes to construct an industrial logistics building with a floor area of 232,058 square feet. The building will consist of two (2) office areas (26,700 square feet) and a warehouse area (205,358 square feet); and e. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction and will contain a combination of blue reflective vision and spandrel glazing, clear anodized mullions and metal canopies. The south elevation, which will be visible along 4th Street, contains a significant amount of glazing. Downspouts will not be visible from the exterior on any elevation of the building as they will be routed through the interior of the building. The building will have a height of 40 feet and 3 inches. The exterior of the building will be painted a combination of various shades of white and gray; and f. The parking requirement for the project, based on the proposed mix of office and warehouse floor areas for the proposed industrial building, is 179 parking stalls; the project will have 255 parking stalls. The trailer parking requirement, based on a ratio of one stall per dock door, is 33 trailer parking stalls; the project will have 34 trailer parking stalls; and g. This application is in conjunction with a proposal to amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 5 (Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931), to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 50 percent. Currently, per Section 5.4 (Development Standards) of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Table 5-6 (Development Standards Summary), the maximum FAR in Planning Area 5 is 35 percent. However, the total building floor area for the project will be 232,058 square feet, which will create an FAR of 44.9 percent; and h. A Tree Removal Permit (Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671) is also proposed in conjunction with this application for the removal of one hundred twenty eight (128) trees, four (4) of which are determined to be heritage trees. The project includes the installation of one hundred ninety six (196) trees throughout the project site; and E6—E8 Pg458 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-93 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00670 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 3 i. On January 9, 2017, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Courtyard by Marriott hotel, located at 11525 Mission Vista. All property owners within 660 feet of the subject property were notified. Attendees included the applicant, architect, contractor and project planner. No comments were received from the public at this meeting; and j. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on January 17, 2017. The main issue raised by staff involved the building's lack of a second primary building material. Per Section 17.122.030 (D)(1)(b) of the Development Code, a minimum of two primary building materials shall be used. The Committee agreed with Staff's position regarding the materials and policy issues, which are discussed in Exhibit L and recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for their review; and k. A Technical Review Committee meeting was scheduled on January 17, 2017. No issues were raised. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission; and I. Per AB52 and SB18, on January 12, 2017, notifications were sent to Native American communities to determine interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. Comments received bythe San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, which included minor additional text to the draft mitigations, were incorporated into the mitigation measures. No other comments were received by any of the other tribes listed above. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting 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 consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The proposal is to construct one (1) industrial office/wholesale, storage and distribution warehouse building of 232,058 square feet. The underlying General Plan designation is Mixed Use, which encourages creative and imaginative employment -generating designs. Although the project does not yet involve a specific tenant, the project does involve the construction of a well -designed employment generating industrial development; and b. The proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the Specific Plan and the purposes of the Planning Area in which the site is located. The proposed project involves the construction of an industrial building that will be used for office/wholesale, storage and distribution warehouse purposes. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 5, states office and wholesale, storage and distribution warehouse uses are permitted by right; and C. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Specific Plan, with the exception of the requirement for Floor Area Ratio, forwhich the applicant has submitted a Specific Plan Amendment. Otherwise the project is in compliance with the required development standards and design guidelines including, but not limited to, setbacks, parking, building height, screening and architecture; and d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or E6—E8 Pg459 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-93 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00670 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 4 improvements in the vicinity as all activities will take place within an enclosed building and/or screened area and will comply with all related local, State and Federal requirements. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, togetherwith all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessmentfor the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends the City Council adopt 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 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, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Two comment letters were received in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration in late May 2017. The comments included concerns regarding (a) the project's potential to impact air quality, (b) the adequacy and specificity of the Health Risk Assessment, (c) the analysis of the project's impacts to biological resources and (d) the project's noise impacts. One of the letters received from Blum Collins LLP, on behalf of the Golden State Environmental and Social Justice Alliance questioned the adequacy of the air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas, health risk assessment and noise sections of the initial study. In response to this letter, the applicant's air quality, noise and biological resource consultants prepared detailed response letters that reaffirm the adequacy of the technical analyses used to assess the projects impacts. They clarified that the methodologies used in their analyses were accurately prepared and that no new mitigation would be required as no new significant environmental impacts were discovered. The other letter submitted by SCAQMD expressed a series of air quality related concerns. The most significant of the concerns relates to the Health Risk Assessment (HRA). SCAQMD staff indicated that the HRA has likely underestimated health risk projections created by the project due to improper methodology and modeling. A response letter was submitted by the applicant's consultant in which they indicated that they revised the HRA analysis to comply with the most up to date SCAQMD requirements. According to the consultant, the slight update to the analysis merely amplifies the analysis in the previously circulated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Air Quality Report and does not affect the conclusions that were previously made. Since the project was not determined to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, additional mitigation measures are not required. Furthermore, the applicant responded to the remaining concerns discussed in the letter and confirmed that the project does not cause any significant unavoidable air quality, greenhouse gas or health risk assessment -based impacts, and therefore no additional mitigation is required. According to CEQA section 15073.5(c), recirculation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required under the following circumstances: (1) mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1; (2) new project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration E6—E8 Pg460 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-93 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00670 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 5 which are not new avoidable significant effects; (3) measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and (4) new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the 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 furtherfinds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt 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 recommends the City Council adopt 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 recommendation 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 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 in the attached Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Checklist incorporated herein. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary E6—E8 Pg461 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-93 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00670 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 6 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E6—E8 Pg462 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The primary building materials for the industrial building shall be a combination of concrete tilt -up with sandblasted concrete. 2. Prior to the installation of any signs, a sign permit shall be obtained by the Planning Department. The Building and Safety Department shall also be contacted to determine whether a building permit is required. 3. Approval is for the construction of a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast comer of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APNs: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 and 90. 4. Approval is for the removal of existing trees on a vacant property in conjunction with the construction of a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APNs: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 and 90. 5. Approval is contingent upon City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all mitigations contained therein. 6. Roof drain downspouts shall be designed to be routed internally within the concrete tilt -up walls and shall not be visible from the exterior of the building. 7. A Uniform Sign Program shall be required upon the creation of three (3) or more separate tenants/uses that share the subject building. 8. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval and enactment of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931. Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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. 10. 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 informatior only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wel sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. Printed: 5/16/2017 www.CityofRC.us E6—E8 Pg463 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 11. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated 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. 12. 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. 13. For 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. 14. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan 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. 15. 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. 16. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 17. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 18. 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. 19. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations, and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. 23. 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. Printed: 511612017 www.CityofRC,us Page 2 of 13 E6—E8 Pg464 Project #: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 24.Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Department to show compliance. The buildings acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 25. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such al etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of I commenced, whichever comes first. such time as all California Building Code and with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be District and the Building and Safety Services shall be inspected for compliance and final improvement plans shall be coordinated for grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, custom lot subdivision, or approved use has 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll -up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 29. 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. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Development impact fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance 2. 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. Printed: 6/16/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 13 E6—E8 Pg465 Project i DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 3. Per Resolution No. 87-96: All developments, except those contained in section 7 and others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows: 1. Lines on the project side of the street. a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developers expense. b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in -lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. c. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on opposite sides of the street. 2. Lines on the opposite of the street from the project: The Developer shall pay a fee to the City for one-half the amount per Section 6. 3. Lines on both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with Section 1 above and be eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one-half the total cost of undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street. 4. 1.Fourth Street frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Major Divided Arterial' standards as required and including: A. Protect or repair curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, traffic signal equipment, and signing & striping as required. B. Modify curb ramps to the latest ADA standards. 2. Utica Avenue frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Industrial Collector" standards as required and including: A. Provide, protect, and/or repair curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Driveways shall be in accordance with the City Driveway Policy including stacking distance and driveway distance from an intersection. 5. Developer shall install a dark fiber conduit package fronting the development along Fourth. Two 4" Schedule 40 PVC conduits, along with three 1 Yd' innerducts in one of the 4" conduits, per City Standard 145, with connection through the parkway to each lot or parcel (fiber -to -the curb, FTTC). The size, placement, and location of the conduit shall be shown on the Street Improvement Plans and subject to Engineering Services Department review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. Printed:5/16/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 13 E6—E8 Pg466 Project #: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 6. The existing ramp located at the north east corner of Utica and 4th shall be evaluated for conformance to current ADA regulations. If the ramp does not meet ADA regulations then the developer shall be responsible for providing design and reconstruction of the ramp for compliance. Design shall be completed and improvements secured for prior to issuance of Building permit or approval of final subdivision map whichever occurs first. The reconstruction along with all public improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy. 7. 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. Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. 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: 5/16/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 13 E6—E8 Pg467 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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 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. 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. ewwv.CityofRC.us Printed: 6/16/2017 Page 6 of 13 Projects#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, ORC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 11.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. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 12.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. 13. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 14. 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. 15. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 16. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 17. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of Building Permits. w .CityofRC.us Printed: 5/16/2017 Page 7 of 13 E6—E8 Pg469 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 21. 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. 22. 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. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all 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. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. Printed:www.CityofRC.us.5116/2017 Page 8 of 73 E6—E8 Pg470 Project4: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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. 3. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 5/16/2017 Page 9 of 13 E6—E8 Pg471 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors". 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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". 17. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 18. 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". Printed: 5/16/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 13 E6—E8 Pg472 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 19. 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 XLD(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 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{771, 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{781 repair or maintenance activities{791, 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 infil{ration 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, The final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall specifically address items, xxx above. Printed: 5/16/2017 www.CityofRC,us page 11 of 13 E6—E8 Pg473 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25.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 Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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). 29. 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. 30. 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: 5116/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 13 E6—E8 Pg474 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way (Utica Avenue and Fourth Street) must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans. 37. 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. Printed: 6116/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 13 E6—E8 Pg475 RESOLUTION NO. 17-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2016-00671, FOR A PROPOSAL TO REMOVE ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT (128) EXISTING TREES ON A VACANT PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 232,058 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE LOGISTICS AND OFFICE BUILDING ON A VACANT SITE OF 11.84 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING AREA 5 OF THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND UTICA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 AND 90 A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph Associates filed an application on behalf of IDS Real Estate Group for the approval of Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tree Removal Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of May 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the request of staff, the review of the application was continued to a date unspecific. 3. On the 8th day of November 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. 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. 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 meeting on November 8, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue; and b. The project site is comprised of five (5) vacant parcels with a combined area of 515,690 square feet (11.84 acres). The site is approximately 585 feet (east to west) by approximately 869 feet (north to south); and E6—E8 Pg476 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-94 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2016-00671 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 2 C. This site once contained an office building and parking lot that was part of a large industrial complex occupied by General Dynamics. The building has since been removed and the parking lot and on -site landscape have not been maintained. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant/Abandoned Mixed Use Planning Area 5 (Empire Parking Lot Lakes Specific Plan) North Multi -tenant Office Mixed Use Planning Area 4 (Empire Developments Lakes Specific Plan) Vintage Apartments and Ontario Center Urban Residential District South Camden Landmark (City of Ontario) (Ontario Center Specific Apartments Plan — City of Ontario East Multi -tenant Office Mixed Use Planning Area 5 (Empire Developments Lakes Specific Plan) West Undeveloped Vineyard Industrial Park Industrial Park (IP) District The trees are not designated as historically significant; and e. The trees are not noted in a Specific Plan, Community Plan or conditions of approval. The four (4) heritage trees slated for removal are not protected by the Empire Lakes Specific Plan or condition of approval; and f. The applicant has submitted an arborist report assessing the health of the individual trees. The report observes that the site contains a total of one hundred twenty-eight (128) existing mature trees, four (4) of which are deemed to be heritage. Many of the trees were determined to be in stressed condition due to lack of irrigation water and maintenance. Additionally, the site contains trees that have been vandalized and cut down; and g. It is necessary to remove the trees in order to construct improvements which allow economic enjoyment of the property. The four (4) heritage trees on the project site are in conflictwith the proposed industrial development on the project site; and h. There are one hundred twenty-eight (128) existing mature trees onsite, four (4) of which are deemed to be heritage; the removal will not affect the established character of the area and the property values as the proposed industrial development includes the installation of one hundred ninety-six (196) trees; and i. It is necessary to remove the trees to construct required improvements within the public street right-of-way or within a flood control or utility right-of-way. The removal of the subject E6—E8 Pg477 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-94 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2016-00671 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 3 trees are necessary to construct public improvements and private infrastructure on the project site; and j. The trees cannot be preserved by pruning and proper maintenance or relocation as the location of the existing trees onsite is in direct conflict with the proposed development; and k. The trees do not constitute a significant natural resource of the City. The trees slated for removal do not constitute a significant natural resource as the trees in the surrounding area are not dependent for their survival or are they significant because of their size, species, location or aesthetic qualities. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. Every effort has been made to incorporate the tree(s) into the design of the project and the only appropriate alternative is the removal of the trees. However, the proposed project will involve the replacement of the trees that are proposed to be removed at an approximate ratio of 1:1.5. Therefore, the project will contain a substantially larger number of trees upon completion; and b. The removal of the trees will not have a negative impact on the health, safety, or viability of surrounding trees, nor will it negatively impact the aesthetics or general welfare of the surrounding area. The trees slated for removal do not constitute a significant natural resource as the trees in the surrounding area are not dependent for their survival or are they significant because of their size, species, location or aesthetic qualities. 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 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, the 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: (1) 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 E6—E8 Pg478 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-94 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2016-00671 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 4 Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt 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 recommends the City Council adopt 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 recommendation 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 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 in the attached Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Checklist incorporated herein. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA W. 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: E6—E8 Pg479 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-94 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2016-00671 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 5 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: AkConditions of Approval WRANOGA Community Development Department O COGAMn N Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The primary building materials for the industrial building shall be a combination of concrete tilt -up with sandblasted concrete. 2. Prior to the installation of any signs, a sign permit shall be obtained by the Planning Department. The Building and Safety Department shall also be contacted to determine whether a building permit is required. 3. Approval is for the construction of a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APNs: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 and 90. 4. Approval is for the removal of existing trees on a vacant property in conjunction with the construction of a 232,058 square foot warehouse logistics and office building on a vacant site of 11.84 acres located within Planning Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue - APNs: 0210-082-78, 79, 84, 89 and 90. 5. Approval is contingent upon City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all mitigations contained therein. 6. Roof drain downspouts shall be designed to be routed internally within the concrete tilt -up walls and shall not be visible from the exterior of the building. 7. A Uniform Sign Program shall be required upon the creation of three (3) or more separate tenants/uses that share the subject building. 8. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval and enactment of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931. Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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. 10. 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 informatior only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. Printed: 5/16/2017 www.CityofRC.us E6-E8 Pg481 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: Project Type: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 11. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated 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. 12. 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. 13. For 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. 14. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan 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. 15. 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. 16. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 17. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 18. 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. 19. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations, and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. 23. 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. Printed: 511012017 www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 13 E6—E8 Pg482 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse built Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 24.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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll -up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 29. 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. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Development impact fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance 2. 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. Printed: 511612017 �.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 13 E6-E8 Pg483 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 3. Per Resolution No. 87-96: All developments, except those contained in section 7 and others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows: 1. Lines on the project side of the street. a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developers expense. b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in -lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. c. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on opposite sides of the street. 2. Lines on the opposite of the street from the project: The Developer shall pay a fee to the City for one-half the amount per Section 6. 3. Lines on both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with Section 1 above and be eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one-half the total cost of undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street. 4. 1.Fourth Street frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Major Divided Arterial' standards as required and including: A. Protect or repair curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, traffic signal equipment, and signing & striping as required. B. Modify curb ramps to the latest ADA standards. 2. Utica Avenue frontage improvements to be in accordance with City 'Industrial Collector" standards as required and including: A. Provide, protect, and/or repair curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required. B. Driveways shall be in accordance with the City Driveway Policy including stacking distance and driveway distance from an intersection. 5. Developer shall install a dark fiber conduit package fronting the development along Fourth. Two 4" Schedule 40 PVC conduits, along with three 1 114" innerducts in one of the 4" conduits, per City Standard 145, with connection through the parkway to each lot or parcel (fiber -to -the curb, FTTC). The size, placement, and location of the conduit shall be shown on the Street Improvement Plans and subject to Engineering Services Department review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 9 Printed: 5/1612017 wmV.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 13 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 6. The existing ramp located at the north east corner of Utica and 4th shall be evaluated for conformance to current ADA regulations. If the ramp does not meet ADA regulations then the developer shall be responsible for providing design and reconstruction of the ramp for compliance. Design shall be completed and improvements secured for prior to issuance of Building permit or approval of final subdivision map whichever occurs first. The reconstruction along with all public improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy. 7. 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. Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. 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: 5 /1612017 w .CityofRC.us Page 6 of 13 E6—E8 Pg485 Project #: DRC2016-00670 DP.C2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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 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. 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. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 5/16/2017 Page 6 of 13 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 11.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. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 12.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. 13. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 14. 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. 15. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 16. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 17. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of Building Permits. Printed: 5/1612017 www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 13 E6—E8 Pg487 Project #: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse build Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 21. 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. 22. 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. 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 including all 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. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. vnm.CityofRC.us Printed: 5/162017 Page 8 of 13 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC20'16-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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. 3. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. www.CilyofRC.us Printed:5/16/2017 Page 9 of 13 Project: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT., Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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". 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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". 17. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 18. 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". Printed: 5/16/2017 wrvvw.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 13 E6—E8 Pg490 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: Project Type 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 19. 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 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. I. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. The final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall specifically address items, xxx above. Printed: 5/16/2017 mm.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 13 E6—E8 Pg491 Project#: DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT; Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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). 29. 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. 30. 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. w .CityofRC.us Page12 of 13 Printed: 5/16/2017 E6—E8 Pg492 Project; : DRC2016-00670 DRC2016-00671, DRC2016-00931 Project Name: 232,058 square foot warehouse building Location: 9680 UTICA AVE - 021008289-0000 Project Type: Design Review Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way (Utica Avenue and Fourth Street) must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans. 37. 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. Printed: 6/16/2017 www.cityofRc.us Page 13 of 13 E6—E8 Pg493