Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-10-Agenda Packet-PC-HPC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF �rcHo C1MON� THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2014 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER • Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Wimberly_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca Munoz_ Howdyshell_ Fletcher II.. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS rF-7 This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to rive minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the 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. III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 10, 2014 oxa� Page 2 A. Approval of minutes dated November 12, 2014 IV: `PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project Please sign in after speaking. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2014-00493 — CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING—A request to develop a 16,260 square foot warehouse and a 12,600 square foot canopy at an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility within the General Industrial(GI)Development District, located on the north side of Arrow Route at 11200 Arrow Route; APN: 0208-961-26. Related File: Sign Permit Notice of Filing DRC2014-00599. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2013-00992-MIG HOGLE-IRELAND- A request to modify CUP DRC2008-00512 to include: 1) replacing a proposed 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot Baghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing a proposed 11,778 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3)enclosing the existing Melt Shop cupola within a proposed 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy,and 4)constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building,on 80 acres at the existing Gerdau Steel Plant in the Heavy Industrial(HI)District located at 12459-B Arrow Route;APN: 022913119. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15164 which does not identify any new environmental impacts not already considered in that Mitigated Negative Declaration. Related Files: CEQA Review CEQA2014-00020. D. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT19932 - ANDREASEN ENGINEERING - A request to subdivide a parcel of about 82,328 square feet(1.89 acres)that is currently developed with one (1) commercial building with a floor area of about 32,000 square feet into twenty-one (21) units for condominium purposes in the Industrial Park(IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay District(HAOD),on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Sixth Street, located at 9220 Haven Avenue-APN: 020926219. Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP 99-53. On July 12, 2000, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit 99-53. Per the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15162, no further environmental review is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 10, 2014 Page 3 V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION E. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES F. COMMISSION ) MENTS; VL ADJOuRNMENT' 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 December 4, 2014, at least 72 hours • prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at(909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours.prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speakers 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 fo used for the official public record. r distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be ; HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MmO DECEMBER 10, 2014 Page 4 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$2,486 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 THIS HIGHLIGHTED SECTION MAY BE REMOVED WHEN PREPARING THE ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES. r Map Vicinityy • Historic Preservation and PlanningCommission Meeting December 10 , 2Q14 LI .... i C f c I 1 t o t CL v o ! a C a CN FE 191St e Base Line I Base Line I Church Church Foothill N T c Foothill fa I Arrow c ® o c I Anew ey CO 8th o 1 0 W B 6th o c 6th w 1a Y YE 4th D * Meeting Location: �•+ City Hall/Council Chambers tm 10600 Civic Center Drive A: Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes dated November 12, 2014 B: Development Review DRC-00493 Item C: Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2013-00992 Item D: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19932 t • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE MINUTES OF j�Ncxo CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 2014 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California r.777I`.' CALL TO ORDER • Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 PM Roll Call Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz A Howdyshell A Fletcher X Additional Staff Present. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development,Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner FIF II; PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS•. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the 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. Item A-1 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �cHo NOVEMBER 12, 2014 C;=i Page 2 Luana Hernandez representing Route 66 LECA reported the historic gas station has received a fresh coat of stucco and when it is fully dry they will proceed with additional planned improvements. She encouraged folks to stop by and take a look. ==11I. CONSIENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION ISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Approval of minutes dated October 8, 2014 Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca to adopt the Consent Calendar 3-0-2 (Howdyshell, Munoz absent). IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS/PLANNING COMMISSION B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (MODIFICATION) DRC2013-01025 - HK'S BAR AND GRILL— A 6-month progress report to review compliance with Conditional Use Permit (Modification)DRC2012-04025'for the operation of a bar and grill within the Neighborhood Commercial(NC)Development District, located at 974019th Street-APN: 1076-011-10. C. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2013-01027 - HK'S BAR AND GRILL - A 6-month progress report to review compliance with the approved Entertainment Permit at HK'S Bar and Grill within the Neighborhood Commercial(NC)Development District,located at 9740 19th Street—APN: 1076-011-10. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner gave the staff report and a brief PowerPoint presentation. He said the business operation had some challenges in their past and they are here this evening for a required 6-month review. The business is in compliance with only one Police call for service. All required security measures are in place and working. He noted staff has made several visits to verify the business is fully compliant Chairman Howdyshell asked if the ACT monitors them. Mr. van der Zwaag said they will continue to do their regular checks and notify us if there are any problems. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Oaxaca thanked the applicant for doing what they should and there is a positive result. Item A-2 • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Rim NOVEMBER 12, 2014 CONGA Page 3 Chairman Wimberly said it is nice to see they have improved so much and are a business we can be proud of. B. C. The Secretary received and filed the report. The Commission will not require another update unless it is found to be necessary. I r. 7. 7 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project Please sign in after speaking. D. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18961 - TRACY RASZEWSKI FOR HOIKE, LLC - A request to subdivide one existing 4.75 acre parcel into 7 parcels within the Equestrian Overlay of the Very Low(VL)Residential Zoning District located at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane at 5615 Sapphire Street - APN: 1061-691-04. This project is categorically exempt per Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City CEQA Guidelines. It is a Class 32 categorical exemption because the project includes in-fill development consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and regulations. Dominick Perez,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report and gave a brief PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He said because of grading and design concerns, staff is recommending the project be continued to a future meeting date to allow time for the applicant to work with staff on those concerns. He noted a petition from the neighbors has been received and copies have been placed before the Commission. Steven Flower, recommended the hearing be opened and then if the Commission is so inclined, make a motion for a continuance to an unspecified date. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing. Bobby Gonzalez, 8388 Brittany Lane, said he appreciates the suggestion of a continuance. He cited drainage issues and said all the water from the subject property drains to the south. He added that no runoff is retained by the retaining wall. Rodrigo De La Cruz, 8369 Brittany Lane said they had serious drainage/water issues during a previous winter when only 3 houses were in his tract. He said there are now 6 • houses there. He added that there is also an issue with water coming off the horse trail. Michael Mulgrew, 5650 Sapphire Street said he is an Engineer. He stated in his professional opinion that there is a problem with the conceptual grading plan with respect to the slopes. He asked that the developer move the slopes from the front yards to the Item A-3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �HO NOVEMBER 12, 2014 `� Page 4 back and side yards to mirror the other adjacent developments. He said the proposed slopes are 10 feet tall with 2:1 slopes in the front yard. He said he reviewed the drainage report prepared in 1992. He said the inlet on Brittany has not been sized properly and the property drainage system appears to be deficient. Paul Syiem, 8307 Orchid said every time it rains he must place boulders to divert the drainage run-off. He said the children cannot cross the road because of-dangerous fast moving water. He was told by the City it is an outlet and not an inlet. He submitted photos for the record. Chairman Wimberly noted that several issues have been raised. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director said staff recommends a Continuance to an unspecified date so we can address and review the concerns more thoroughly. D. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 3-0-2(Howdyshell, Munoz absent) to continue the application for Tentative Tract Map 18961 to unspecified date. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19528 - SHAREEF AWAD-A request to subdivide a 58,745 square foot parcel into two parcels for a site located on the south side of Banyan Street and east of East Avenue in the Very Low (VL) Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan at 13351 Banyan Street APN: 0225-191-37. Related Case: Variance DRC2014-00530 and Site Development Review DRC2014-00514. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration for consideration. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2014-00530 - SHAREEF AWAD-A request to reduce the required lot depth requirement from 200 feet to 166 feet related to a request to subdivide a 58,745 square foot parcel into two parcels (SUBTPM19528)for a site located on the south side of Banyan Street and east of East Avenue in the Very Low(VL)Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan at 13351 Banyan Street APN: 0225-191-37. Related Case: SUBPTM19528 and Site Development Review DRC2014-00514. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration for consideration. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2014 00514- SHAREEF AWAD-A request to construct a circular driveway for a single-family residence for a site located on the south side of Banyan Street and east of East Avenue in the Very Low(VL) Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan at 13351 Banyan Street APN: 0225-191-37. Related Case:SUBPTM19528 and Variance DRC2014-00530. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration for consideration. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted that staff received a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife expressing concern of the determination to file a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a request to perform a habitat assessment, survey and impact assessment for Burrowing Owls and to Itcm A-A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AN W NOVEMBER 12, 2014 CR UCAMONM Page 5 mitigate for nesting birds. Staff believes that this would be a very minor project and exempt if a Variance had not been required by the Development Code. He said to address the concern, Staff is recommending the following condition: Mr. van der Zwaag read into the record the following condition: Prior to approval of a Grading Plan or Tree Removal Permit, the applicant shall submit a Biological and Habitat Survey assessing whether the project site is habitat for the Burrowing Owl, nesting birds or protected plant communities. The Biological and Habitat Survey shall conform to the Department of Fish and Wildlife's recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012) and the Department of Fish and Wildlife's 2009 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impact to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. if the Biological and Habitat Survey determines that there are Burrowing Owls or Burrowing Owl habitat, nesting birds or projected plan communities, the applicant shall comply with all of the recommendations made in the survey prior to approval of said • permits. Vice Chairman Oaxaca asked if in staffs opinion if the project would be exempt if not for the required Variance. Mr. van der Zwaag said yes and noted that very little of the lot is untouched and it would be very improbable that the owls would be present. He said he noted our intentions to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and received no response. Commissioner Fletcher asked why the Variance trigger this requirement or level of environmental review. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney said it is part of the CEQA Guidelines. He said if the application was just for the small subdivision, the project would have qualified for exempt status. He said because our code requires a Variance to modify the driveway, it takes it out of the realm of being exempt because the project does not conform to the required standards. Mr. Awad, property owner, said other side is not really vacant, as it currently has a horse barn and he previously removed another structure that was falling down. He said he would comply with the condition. He said he wants to build a nice house on the vacant lot, remodel existing house, and make improvements to the street and trail. Chairman Wimberlyopened public hearing and seeing and hearing none closed the public • hearing. Commissioner Fletcher said he has no issues with the request-it all makes sense and it is Item A-5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RwcHO NOVEMBER 12, 2014 GA Page 6 compatible with the surrounding area. Vice Chairman Oaxaca thanked the applicant for being willing to cooperate. Chairman Wimberly agreed, and also thanked the applicant for accepting the condition. E, F, G. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 3-0-2 (Howdyshell, Munoz absent) to adopt the Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 14-50 approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19528, 14-51 approving Variance DRC2014-00530 and 14-52 approving Site Development Review DRC2014-00514 with the added condition previously read into the record. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION H. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES - Chairman Wimberly noted that Commissioner Munoz could not attend this evening because he is at a conference for the League of California Cities in Sacramento. I. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Fletcher asked legal counsel about the late notice received from Fish and Game regarding our advertised Notices of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney stated they can email them in. He said that our cutoff for comments includes the meeting date. VII. ADJOURNMENT 7:35 PM 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 November 6, 2014, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ENIf you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact-the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of to hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Itpm A—f, inHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES HO NOVEMBER 12, 2014 CUPCONG► Page 7 INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is • opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a ,Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 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$2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us THIS HIGHLIGHTED SECTION MAY BE REMOVED WHEN PREPARING THE ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES. • Item A-7 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT • DATE: December 10, 2014 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission �,;UCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00493— CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING —A request to develop a 16,260 square foot warehouse and a 12,600 square foot canopy at an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility within the General Industrial' (GI) Development District, located on the north side of Arrow route at 11200 Arrow Route - APN: 0208-961-26. Related file: Sign Permit Notice of Filing DRC2014-00599. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Design Review DRC2014-00493 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial Building; General Industrial (GI) District South - Industrial Building; General Industrial (GI) District East - Industrial Building; General Industrial (GI) District West - Industrial Building; General. Industrial (GI) District B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The project site is located on the north side of Arrow Route, between Milliken Avenue and Maple Place. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing Steelscape building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and all street frontage improvements. The .applicant maintains a 252,193 square foot manufacturing/processing facility, the majority of which is constructed of pre-fabricated metal siding. The site is surrounded by industrial buildings on the north, south, east, and west. A rail spur also runs along the easterly portion of the site serving the rear of the existing Steelscape facility. Item B-1 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2014-00493— CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 2 D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Type of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Existing Building Office 13,525 sq. ft. 4/per 1,000 sq. ft. 55 55 Warehouse/Processing 20,000 sq. ft. 1/per 1,000 sq. ft. 20 20 20,000 sq. ft. 1/per 2,000 sq. ft. 10 10 215,000 sq. ft. 1/per 4,000 sq. ft. 54 54 Subtotal 139 139 Proposed Addition Warehouse/Processing 16,260 sq. ft. 1/per 4,000 sq. ft. 4 3 Total 143 142 The number of required parking spaces is determined by a summation of the individual parking requirements for each individual use and where the calculation results in a fractional space, the next larger whole number is the number of spaces required. There is sufficient parking available for the existing Steeiscape facility; however,the additional warehouse floor area creates a minor deficiency of one (1) parking space. (Exhibit B). Conditions of Approval require the Site Plan to be revised to show all required parking prior to the issuance of Building Permits. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and 12,600 square foot canopy attached to the rear of their existing warehouse/processing building (Exhibit B). The proposed addition is designed using pre-fabricated metal siding consistent with their existing building materials, finish, massing, and color (Exhibit E). The proposed addition is not visible from public rights-of-way because of the configuration of the existing building and the location of existing industrial buildings on adjacent properties. The proposed project is Code compliant regarding all applicable development standards including setbacks, building height, and landscaping. Within the Industrial development standards of the Development Code, the construction of new metal buildings is limited to the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (MIHI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) Districts. The Code does, however, allow the expansion of existing facilities consistent with the design of existing improvements. Because the applicant proposed the addition of a metal building and canopy to the rear of an existing industrial building, the architecture is designed to be compatible with the existing architecture, and the proposed addition will not be'visible from public right-of-way, staff supports the proposed metal building addition to the existing Steelscape facility. The proposed project includes: 1. Installation of a 12,620 square foot warehouse addition. This warehouse addition is centrally located to the project site, immediately adjacent to the rear of their present warehouse/processing facility (Exhibit B). The building addition is approximately 250 feet (east to west) by approximately 65 feet (north to south) (Exhibit C). The roof is a simple shed style, sloping from north to south and ranges in height from 27 to 32 feet (Exhibit D). Item B-2 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2014-00493 — CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 3 • This building addition will function as additional warehousing floor space for the Steelscape facility. 2. Installation of a 12,600 square foot canopy, which may include the addition of 12,000 square feet of solar panels to the canopy roof(Exhibit B). This canopy addition is centrally located to the project site and is immediately north of and attached to the warehouse addition. The canopy is approximately 206 feet (east to west) by approximately 63 feet (north to south) (Exhibit C). Like the warehouse addition, the canopy roof is a simple shed style, sloping from north to south and ranges in height from 27 to 32 feet (Exhibit D). The building will function as a covered truck loading area for the warehoused product. 3. Relocation of the existing trash compactor, propane fueling station, liquid hydrogen, liquid nitrogen tank, and scrap bins (Exhibit B). These items currently exist on-site and will be relocated approximately 80 feet north of their existing location. These tanks are not currently screened as their location is not visible from public rights-of-way. No screening material is proposed for the new location because they will not be visible from the public rights-of-way. 4. Additionally, the applicant submitted a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of 9 heritage trees, whose location conflicts with proposed improvements (see discussion below). The permit will be considered by the Planning Director following the Planning Commission's action on the project. B. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Fletcher and Granger) on September 16, 2014. The Committee approved the project as presented (Exhibit H). C. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on September 16, 2014. The Committee approved the project as presented. D. Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC): The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was adopted by the Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011, with the basic function of promoting compatibility between ONT and the land uses that surround it. As required by State law, the ALUCP provides guidance to affected local jurisdictions with regard to airport land use compatibility matters involving ONT. The Airport Influence Area includes the areas in which current or future airport-related safety, noise, airspace protection. or overflight factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP. E. Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00494: The applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit application requesting to remove 9 heritage trees in order to accommodate the development of the project site. The Tree Removal Permit will be reviewed administratively following the Planning Commission's action, as noted above. There are a total of 15 trees on-site whose location conflicts with proposed improvements. This includes 3 Sweet Gum (Liquidambar), 6 Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis), 1 Mexican Fan Item B-3 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC201.4-00493—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 4 Palm (Washingtonia Robusta), and 5 Bottlebrush (Callistemon) trees. An Arborist Report (Shamrock Arborist, June 21, 2014) was prepared to address the condition of the 15 trees and determined that 9 (the 3 Sweet Gum and 6 Canary Island Pine) qualify as heritage trees under the Development Code (17.16.080(C)(2)) either because of their height (in excess of 30 feet), or size (a diameter of 20-inches 4.5 feet from ground level). The remaining 6 trees do not meet these standards and are exempt from Tree Removal Permit requirements. The Tree Removal Permit for the 9 heritage trees will consider the condition of the trees, whether they conflict with proposed improvements, the number of trees in the neighborhood, whether they could be preserved by pruning or relocating, whether they are a significant natural resource, and whether they are required to be preserved by any Specific Plan, condition of approval, or designation as a Historic Landmark. Because the location of the 9 trees conflict with proposed improvements, are located to the rear of the project site, are not visible from the public-rights-of-way, are not suitable for relocation, and are not required to be preserved, a condition of approval is included to require the applicant to obtain approval of a Tree Removal Permit from the Planning Director. F. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental.effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils,. greenhouse gas emissions, 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, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. The public comment period for the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration began on Monday, November 10, 2014 and will run through Wednesday, December 10, 2014. As of the writing of this staff report, no public comments have been received on DRC2014-00493. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and the property was posted. No direct public comments to staff have been received. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Burnett Planning Director CB:TG/ge Item B-4 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2014-00493—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 5 • Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Floor Plan Exhibit D - Building Cross-Section Exhibit E - Elevations Exhibit F - Grading Plan Exhibit G - Landscape Plan Exhibit H - Design Review Committee Action Comments (September 16, 2014) Exhibit I - Initial Study Parts I, II, and III Exhibit J - Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2014-00493 Item B-5 TTI PROPOSED x BAY 5 BUILDING ADDITION FOR r STE E LSCAPE D 11200 ARROW ROUTE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 AT 1200 ARROW ROUTE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 rt VICINITY MAP AERIAL VIEW PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX :q w C 'i:oblh'..'.p.7"r"f`r�-rwaaz-��imr^�- iu :�sa;�._r�.. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL _ A0.1 COVER SHEET pT 1-'iR ?. Mw.u' +" ...r':'r�r'-.■ AO.R GENERAL NOTES *.-+,• � y — oo e AM SIIE PLAN !� SIEELSCAPE A1.1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A2.1 FLOOR PUN t. �.'.,rnn •---�•n rti1 u.exe.vcue.e..un.x AS.1 ELEVATIONS 4 SECTIONS AS.1 SECTIONS . S ! q_�f y.• Si.'.1 wERIR ErAA p °n ai :n.new ovmw.�i�:a".m. � um,dwcuaSoTrw rrr.:xinu awn,+,n,e ;os na f. wf.rtin 'tttWMm.l ■ ��Y r ' i- -t RREMCO CONSIRUC110N it _i • •• •,•m-� reca ■n _.___III .e.u.w..n r" "� �a!a4b9oer ■ , y� tel,b r6hli 4N N:a � °. rItl rllM.rUl�n■ N--�■ � n:ri:�wrq..,:a[4. F � " rw c�awS'1�e�m�e"■"mas�ni�iw. IRF°WI`a 3 1 _ _ °WCffs..lmtN-I a ave "` '' ' 1p"` 1■0 oarwsaee ama�m.fine N.wvn In LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1urna.. ..u, rk rl. f r �c...a....'°°a,�.io.s"""�°�a'aui�r°a.mup:m■N..... Nvum..e.w:n..u.adw.,...w enneirw i�waeia..�wco"'.emoa„a..ew�e.IN:. vnf a'n�.ef°A1'".n�••••�af.n.nn.uce.a anew mo.mu u�.wr.r sleelscafe BREMCO CONSTRUCRON STBELSCAPE FACILITY BAY 5 WAREHOUSE ADDITION COVER SHEET A0.1 A 0.11 m. DiiG rMn ye KEYNOTES m w .a X : ...a .°..,°nw..°.µu ---------------- -----------------------. BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS: QQ - -- ----- ,_,.. II 1 IE)ZINCALUME I o FACILITY • i ,...ww,e,. I n.e»,awr. I00 i j — 1 1 e�ewa�-c.. w,•rY...,.n w..r�"i,`a."."" lE)COAl1NO FACILITY � ne,wn wwusrs (E)ADJACENT neFn+�mn�. � m I I 2+w,evxA°°01°v'°O�nMeiwe fD BUILDING --- w ..� I wrwar�ew.v,eu+cw..nrs....�wco°rw,ne.., I : ———— ——————————————————— -- —'1 I mwwmmuc m. 1 I Q, � I ...a,•w,w �'• — na,.v< wn.."T r. � I I rmuve Riuno: Is v mom..+° nna.smw u mm,°m46i,u,'vn� tw • I(�. I —.A— cm +msuwAwrm m ' i I 1 ----- o o. ® • °• u f 1 ...�..� ..ur.e�n,.a ,mei. „w.,.w.,,.. am ARROW ROUTE N steelscape a BREMCO CONSTRUCTION STRELSCAPE FACILITY BAYS WAREHOUSE ADDITION SITE PLAN uuv,rm,b w �.� n�•:•w SITE PLAN 1 rs neje"° p A1�11 KEYNOTES Mk 12 arr.LDa.0 aamoaDan I I ` .. <. ® \ }yy'. (N) A/NM'C WA[C I I I \\ .•.�\..:...•.•.•.• \ EAYSRNC P.LV. \ . . . . I I . .. KR/fr ALR N• s2 M RE RELOCAIER I I 2J Dae.0 r/ �ImL sGv mse Kms_ _ �_ - 3N0 UNE \- /#6w Paw S.F. I I ®"El - ANOPY ICONST. ® aoo�_B— ® t2�80C9C�. � MOE T — —n OD \.\\ III III LA IIII (EJ RFrAhWC ® t". WALL (E)PAINT • +� \ I I I WAREHOUSE / PROPOSED BAYS WAREHOUSE 8,010 SA. MER J �` -- • HI S.F. Hd OCC. 42 I I S•1 Oct.—_ TME IV44T CONST. ,HYPE 118 CONST.—, (E)COATING FACILITY 2NOFL.00R a \ I WAROFFICE 117,182 9.Fi I I © 192 S.F 1;708 S.F. a . a I 1 S•1 OCC TYPE II-B CONST.Ll II 29 JO ©J © OFFICE 1,708S.F. O I� I n INCINERATOR -SULTAaal steelscape N ® BREMCO CONSTRUCTION BTBBLBCAPB PACILMY BAY 6 WARBHOVBWADDITION ENLARGED SITE PLAN , T I==D A ENLARGED SITE PIAN 1.2 SfV. OlSC. DAt. ' Ar.oxoe•oea•aedoo T T m X - I-------------I-------------I------------I----------- -------- II III E�E ca ------------ ---------------- TRUCK UNLOaING CANOPY e± I I I I RAMP 91 N Ir t 3 :We VW 1 10 0 co WA I 13AY 5-WA HOUSE EXPANtION Ll F Z / /W / / / / V A V A Z /I i/ 4 i / c( i!00 000 00 ..... --- ............... -t-u= ---- ---- ----------------.1..1..T...------------..1.......1..................1 1---------------------- --------------- ....... ---- - ....... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ....... 13KEYNOTES L ...... steelscap,- BREMCO CONSTRUCTION STEELSCAPE FACILITY SAY 5 WAREHOUSE ADDITION FLOOR PLAN 1 FLOOR PLAN A2. 1A2.11C Z., D"a 169a ��rrti.�laae� taco .................. / pwarnrao4l cant. .. SECTION ................ .... nj 71. —t CD IW CD SECTION KEYNOTES -------------I-- - tr— I— ,r _ SECTION 1015UIT.IT o.slee1sco e BREMCO CONSTRUCTION gig-ELBCAPE FACILITY BAY 5 WARRHOUBE ADDITION ELEVATIONS&SECTIONS A3.1 r —nn A3.1 C I ------ --- -� M: SECTION „°L`;. 4 SECTION I I �' TT T I I T T T T T I - I I 11 s WEST ELEVATION „ ;. 5 SECTION&ELEVATION AT LINE H KEYNOTES �I� i.. iil I� ii;!:ji 'I 'i -`–_ Ili 'I i 'I •' I' li:l'I SII .I ';i' L .:I !.I -- SECTION AT TRUCK WELL „°"�. 6 NORTH ELEVATION a...nn. 1 BREMCO I CUNSTRUCTIUN BTBBLOCAPS PACILITY E BAY 5 WARBHOUBP ADDITION 77 ff ELEVATIONS A3. RiV. rDFRC.y DwR _ a@ ® nn.ao Rl-D,Mrt.I m-n-1. @ •• _ A3.2 C wH D30l-ftll•t6-0RO 0 0 • o A I , 6._ _ SCALE II IS _ JO 0 30 60 90 1 1 I �.....I__ ,+ —'eE Sf2 err a RiIL I I 1 1 o--_- LIAf11Rlv1 �'`-_ . /,•/ /'/l `� �1Y AASMT �iR19,[5� • Z —� Iv1 �'\ hn. . 1t.�L 4�""•� '/-, Al l v SIYAi1t .II I L X. " �� _qtr 510-v{1Lx,lOx uM•— a I I I . ET A llu 5 T":•Y - T�Y?__ + o^ R.. yam.-:h._-:.'J ?-3 � F� ,i L ` f� .\ET,A!1 Rill I I 1 I'f x«9xs Is yp L---T - Y tiR M l;a. -•� R � .�,�' n ,I�. "moo ;.zr +—." ' • CD ..71 — 1roMV1A s, r Mwrc1 P' I {,vu. c9•o!n �' WAREHOUSE L_•. \A �I I N u — mamsEORAYS•WARENOUSE I ,TT.o.w•I / 1�/ V 1 v p �+ 18,1!7/'SF. a ai,ii° rr�T.en VIv1 yy MM0+EC1 A I LIMITS° II I I — 1 I -- I EX.PA/H1.11V I /TY 1 11 I X 0 ; SIIE AREA 12.1 AC -- °" ,{..' 99.0• ,9.D• 101.5' ... .. ....... .. ... I]+i. I 0115r.11110)AREA.2.0 AC I 1 :A l '. OseY vexrlws Ysee9s I 11 OIEEL'RE /,p•Y FKxi /�, 51[FLSCAY[ 1 9.Oi {-CIK18 P•KKh, Q'MNIA'AW)Y I STATICS CUCAIWOA.CA •:^ MOM9E0 PCC vK1Exr LSIS I I I To its i jl I EARTHWORM QUANTITY I 1 TILL- too n SECTION A-A I I I I1 m AAAADmy WAµvlTIES v.+ SVSSIRLMCE 011 9MIMAtt• ft.."A"AI �" Dp1 20,9 SRT vlES DMIYE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,Ax—AADIAD 1-11 SEM"0. ®' d®B>m 'Collox.a 9xsxx ND.01110.1•RCAICI HEAD BOLT Ix CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN DIC T ASSOCIATES 9.15x.-ares W ElIAF cure AT snuAMcsr COMER STEELSCAPE OF ETISAN.AYE AMO AMOM R0,1rF. l3in-71 � 1 rp01 MElT ar C,IRS MTMM. 9Ef011",9 ..� BAY 5 BUILDING ADDITION sTAIlEO'se CO Ox 01110 [ou oFc at 11200 ARROW RTE u2vAllw: 11ss.sA, �n1 ,�, s "xz two oauu L.Damlux o•9E RANCHO CUCANONGA.CA 91730 MCF:tsm.sa1.x91{ APN 0206-961-2fi NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMP S RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR BMP MAINTENANCE NI - [OICATIOT 9T SIODI RATER ITIMARM AND,56IA SD-13 Nt - ACRNIY RESIMCONS N3 - LANDSGFE YANAOEKNT S3 OUTDOOR NARMK S1MAO,SO-34 112M ANION ROUTE N. - MV YAse`,N RANCHO CUCAR.,A G 91130 N1 - SPLL CO11NO[NCY PGN 53 NASI SIOS.SD IAO[AREA -33 (9w).9T-.111 E . x[ - NAEAMNVI IENS RE KD=05U1—LANCE UNFORR FITCODE AOTIE.IRITARON S• EfiTDUTT MNEATTOIL SD-I9 xlD- W He' Ul1ER/w9M5 TOITROI VR— IS FG w LANDSGVE AREAS A RNMUR OF PIRYIOO PIV[p MIE- EAELOKF mAfRNa 1'TO Y 6ELON Tel INNER"m—NENT t..n0 s" x13- VACINY SKEPNO w PAeHDNO LOT NIl- ooWUMICE MO ALL DIM APPLKAW HIVES STANDARDS _- 3.•Of'w.f1'R 111•SS'n.r!'R 1 R A .11 21 aECl a SCALE t'So 6 So so so - fL, I 1[ TOP RAIL 1 1 f 1•n•f.,ef n 1 � I um see I LIR IPIPI ' [AIf1 R,II SrIM . 1 010RETENTION MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE IIv.RAIL YONINLY AO TAM t.Aevs—sve.DERMS.AND UTTER CONTROL I I ANNUALLY AND NSPECT 1-ITANONO RATE11.RSUAL CWTAI .m fIN � I I WRNS ND AFTER S RE.—SEOMCNIS ARELE44TATE AS REOURED. CIIMLw RFPAR OAYA�—SED eI EROYW YIIX R 1 I -• PERVIOUS PAVERS MAINTENANCEE 6CHEDULE KM AlAsACENT LANDS-1 AREII ANiANlO. YOIORY KNOW OIPWIOSS"I'm IAMDSCAVE l�•IIIL 1 RNMl1E5 1 REMOVEM TRA 1RASN AA ND GERMS. RFCONSiP IS 1 91 �f 10"T 1 I _ seSPEDI AREAS—P— S/FO 1 I NRA SREEP AND/OR PURER RAIN TD RESTORE N1C-N 5T01M KIEANATI Y KNOW AND HURT R—S, T 1 EVIxTs lIMIwURK YCTIOI ANO IIESCRVDET PPP \ • 1 — LATA P"DINNED. AREA AT pN110irO{ ' st.-ANNUKLY SREEP TO NFIIULE OIANCE w CLoOOxC LIMITS ; 1 E9151 i' \\ 1 � NET 9Kl I I o Ivin ` s " IX PAA? \ / LL Al Ep KM1011f IAKRs WAIAE7 XA5F 1 ' W X ii'sl DMAI h1AB era•o1�[9•N nlsr nrre \\1 1 M I.IrI�/ 88065 8f FF�T.eo� rL[•u•R..99'. Vbw 5734 of %� sw• MR CWWER PAVERS IX PAWFACQT' 3 Y NMIYUN moss ' _ [-BFWOIG SAMO(M0.e) I .'ASN N0.37 O wnTE oT'Ex-wAwD RASE IX PA/NTFfAC/lJ7Y I I -21 fEl TO I so r enD9 Fs I /// rs W As.N0.[ Ff i 1 _ — BrONE—SE O.5• R9 T� 1 • ? I —E.PEAYIas P.— - •fir -- L: - "??�'''M76` Y• --ST.PCC rAV 1 Ef1s1 PERVIOUS PAVERS TYWCALSECTIOwIv! N.I.S. ��� 1'pAvtt 44 B10RETENTION TYPICAL SECTION 1/ Yrs e[xw WRA. TRr 9[ �Tq�O� u. r.lsTOwal.Twl n OO• Lln /� E0T9 SRI v1ER DR1VE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SRN eENIO110IND C .eEKN IIARR II 111III GlY/A`\'1�I AI I:J-II' V�dmari DO.rOI.G 9n:. lo.wno.r REDO xtAo eur w rYGU /',I�\Wy J`I`-B.LIIY11l JIIS • 'l'RRN►RY7RTER"RALTTT7RRA4EYEI1T7 coTlnlerz LMR AT sourxlEsr cpRKN ASSOCIATES IfwR uA-nis s Ax t e u w ETIRAMA AVE AND AAMR MUTE. STEELS..A 1 raw KIT w LMB RITMN. ""R°' BAT 9 BUIl01N0 ADDITION Af'SNwR "A1FE0'Se CO AN DltlO' G aR 11200 ARRDM RTE ABLY 201. EL[VAOOIT SIS3.s.+ NAmn DORAR.As L.comYAx DwE RANCHO CUCAWNGA. CA 91730 IR a.1 RCt IefoD.3-31-2DI6 APN 0208-961-26 1 mPLANT LISTILEGEND :' rr s,.Try Ew b xr - uv.i ara. EH IRRIGATION NOTES: O Ybr ( '<-°n ••�Z+.... Nw.xu••mw O. bN titin YM-Ynr Ntw Y uekwrb..vxs ar•aw wxa --- — ---- — — — — -- -- —_ --- _ ..ate..' a•.�b� a.n,. �" a..x... R.e,b.a as _ RNITMG NOTE9: (sW OeYY Meals E0. I _ ea•m TTesW E-Y• ®. ————_ - N�Ya}g —— __ ::^�.�...�.+.x•+.. �Iamw. irw..Yav<..1bysV m.xl>mw ssY fN. ' i ••(,• � YYm frs tmdt rad 6a} —wI PI — / ewsrYe(.lou rt caws ro Rerul 6 d � � \\ � �+••w+.ba.. w.r�•Yx.e rl..a rr... /-� IR(uZ[ SI .Y, �"a1� \ E �ba4(xE spr Y A•r ---------------------------- o - Q ® . I `D (E) ZINCALUME ^ \ \ pp FACILITY III r ;'�T"a"1O„°' PROPOSED CANOPY ROOF Av<R I I I 12,600 S.F. � \ \ \ I I I '1\� \ RE' WALL (EIPAINT \ \ I PROPOSED SAY 5 WAREHOUSE WAREHOUSE i 16,251 S.F.\\\ a (E) COATING FACILITY -- or fETIAYlfO loTAl Wal[R VEY Wrn u •!fR•UOrY•xcE +—•Ier•,YM,NI _ __ HTOROZOxF w(OREu(rox 1(YiE �Pra•1 9 VI•IYxY� .bp .. __ w• ,y....4rx •-IxY+xr.. K •sn•aw.Y- ,y.r •N�aa•r-v r.••--4+ TM(••M b Ox PixlY el ilraxgq be ,,— sieelscape ROYAL OAK DESIGNBREMCO oe as.YwcAu mm 0, "�Y"a'°i R'" 1° CONSTRUCTION STBBLSCAPB FACILITY -rrw r a ir(. s-E••Y s w E Ypm u-Is wa uR R.e Y-IWx 8.J'd. Yaq•cYq(A,MR•el/Isw , BAY 5 WARBHOUSB ADDITION e: �' urw-i5n YnYl,a,.•u.lYxa CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN r REV. DESG DATE ti 8 Aro oZDa-esT-ze DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Tom Grahn September 16, 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW - DRC2014-00493 — CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING —A request to develop a 16,260 square foot warehouse and-a 12,600 square foot canopy at an existing 268,524 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility within the General Industrial (GI) Development District, located at 11200 Arrow Route. - APN: 020896126. Design Parameters: Steelscape currently maintains a 268,524 square foot facility on the north side of Arrow Route, west of Milliken Avenue. This includes 13,525 square feet of office, 252,193 square feet of warehouse, and 2,806 square feet of storage. The majority of the existing building is constructed with pre-fabricated metal siding. A small office area on the street front incorporates a brick facade. The site is bounded on the north and east by rail spur lines, and on the north, east, and west by existing industrial buildings. The applicant is proposing a 12,260 square foot warehouse addition, and a 12,600 canopy attached to the rear of the existing building. The structure is proposed to be constructed out of metal to match the existing building. Staff Comments: Maior Issues: The following design issue will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this • project: 1. Within the Industrial land use requirements of the Development Code, the construction of new metal buildings is limited to the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (MINI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) land use designations. The Code does, however, allow the expansion of existing facilities consistent with their present design. The proposed addition is a metal design consistent with the warehouse, production line, and office buildings. Because the application proposes the addition of a metal building and canopy to the rear of an existing industrial building, the architecture is designed to be compatible with the existing architecture, and the proposed addition will not be visible from public right-of-way, staff has no comment on the proposed addition. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Development Review DRC2014-00493. Desian Review Committee Action: The item was approved as presented. Members Present: Fletcher, Granger Staff Planner. Tom Grahn EXHIBIT H Item B-15 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.) C',UCAMONGA 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 full:: Upon.,review.of.the 'completed. Initial Study Part- I. and the developmdat applicatim 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'specipl'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.asrequired 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. . GENERAL INFORMATION: INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that itis 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: Project Title: Steelscape Solar Canopy&Warehouse Addition Name&Address of project owner(s): BHP Coated Steel Corporation 222 W Kalama River Rd Kalama,Wa Name&Address of developer or project sponsor: Bremco Construction -William O Lewis 3470 E. Spring St. Long Beach Ca 90806 EXHIBIT I Page 1of10 Item B-16 Charlie BBuuquet-Consolidated Consulting Contact Person&Address: 7375 Daycreek Blvd#103-198 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91739 Name&Address of person preparing this form(if different from above): 855-937-6527 Telephone Number. INFORMATIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION.- information •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 the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location(describe): North of Arrow,west of Miliken;project border is west of the rail spur crossing 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers(attach additional sheet if necessary): APN 0208-961-26 `5) Gross Site Area(ac/sq. ft.): 12.23 '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets&proposed 12.23 . 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 Page 2.of 10 Item B-17 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. • Grading, tree removal and building permits 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): West-Existing Warehousing and office facility business park East-Rail Spur and existing warehouse distrubtion building North- Existing facility for warehousing and rail spur South-Arrow route and trucking facility The site general drains to the south east portion of the site. The existing trees were installed in 1994, 7-10 of which will be removed or replaced for the proposed modifications. There are no known environmental • aspects or concerns of the site. • Updated 4/11/2013 Page 3 of 10 Item B-18 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite ad sources of information(books,published reports and oral history): None. 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site(aircraft,roadway noise,etc.)and how they will affect proposed uses: Adjacent rail spur is the only noise generator outside of the site, but it does not affect current or future use. Noise sources will be the same since the activities are generally the same for the faclity. 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 projes. 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: Proposed addition of an approxiamte 16,000 sf warehousing/processing facility to construct additional warehouse and match the general appearance;one existing GL door on the paint warehouse will be converted to a dock high door. A 12,000 SF Solar canopy will extend to the north from the new warehouse. TI will cover the truck loading operation. Existing LH2 tanks, propane,trash compactor, scrap binds and parking spaces will be relocated to accomodate the proposed project. 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.): No know cultural or historical aspects of the site. Project is currently 75'tall and screened from public view, building is primairly metal and tilt-up material Page 4 of 10 Updated 4/11/2013 Item B-19 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project?. The new structures will be lower than the existing 75'high structures approved by the City in 1994 and will and integrate a compatable project into an area surrounded on 3 sides by existing buildings. 15) Indicate the type of short-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? Existing rail and loading and unloading of various busineses a '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: There will be removal of approx 7-10 existing trees to accomodate the parking relocation. 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) Peak use(gaUDay) b. Commercial/ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use(gaUmin/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ❑Septic Tank ❑ 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(gaMday) b. Commercial/Industrial(gal/day/ac) Updated 4/11/2013 Page 5 of 10 Item B-20 t RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: - Detached(indicate range of parcel sizes,minimum lot size and maximum lot size: N/A Attached(indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent(per month) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) indicate the expected number of schoolchildren who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary:. b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of uses)and major function(s)of commercial,industrial or institutional uses: Warehousing and loading of metal products. Updated 4/11/2013 Page 6 of 10 . Item B-21 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) indicate hours of operation: 24 hour operation,3 shifts 28) Number of employees: 80 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: 40 • '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type, and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District,at(818)572-6283): See attached environmental report 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. Service is existing and new project will not require additional capacity;fire flow and availabity for services have all be requested and provided. • Updated 4/11/2013 Page 7 Of 10 Item B-22 33) In the known history of this property,has there been any use,storage,or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include,but are not limited to PCB's;radioactive substances;pesticides and herbicides;fuels,oils,solvents,and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use,it known. The site currently has an existing CUPA permit and reference documents 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. All hazardous materials are shown on the existing cupa for the site documents. 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: /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 fore an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. �. r ` Date: 1 Signature. 1 Title: Updated 4/11/2013 Page 8 of 10 Item B-23 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 705 gallons per EDU per day Multi-Family 256 gallons per EDU per day Neighborhood Commercial 1000 gal/day/unit (tenant) General Commercial 4082 gal/day/unit (tenant) Office Professional 973 gal/day/unit (tenant) Institutional/Government 6412 gal/day/unit (tenant) Industrial Park 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant) Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/unit (tenant) Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/unit (tenant) Sewer Flows Single-Family 270 gallons per EDU per day Multi-Family 190 gallons per EDU per day • General Commercial 1900al/da /acre 9 Y Office Professional 1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/acre Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/acre Heavy Industrial (distribution) 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 Item B-24 k: F 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)981-0766 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 Page 10 of 10 Updated 4/11/2013 Item B-25 a w . a y .� � �' �w,'�~�y,�,1 v ` -� , �� F���R�+ t` 51 6�F� �• � y- � � A t• - 1� t�� ,,,,. 4 ,." *., wa LR AV m Oft `ulMranrx-+z.vr.• �[y �i� {{I,�1V�C3" '� ,;j- v. l - J r. ci W ' 4w 4r At ip v c n 4. .._ •� s r ae' V►, r W tom. aw �'�+ \��✓�y CTIvU low t= 11n ` iw '�f x IMIN i AV ej Asm • City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ® INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review DRC2014-00493 2. Related Files: Development Review 93-17, Conditional Use Permit 94-11, and Minor Development Reviews 92-13, 92-20, and 98-18. 3. Description of Project: The proposed project is the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse and a 12,600 square foot canopy at an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility located on the north side of Arrow Route within the General Industrial (GI) District at 11200 Arrow Route-APN: 0208-961-26. 4. Applicant: BHP Coated Steel Corporation 222 W. Kalama River Road Kalama, WA 98625 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (GI) District • 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and all frontage improvements. The site is surrounded by industrial buildings to the north, south, east, and west. The zoning of the properties in all directions is General Industrial (GI) District. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750, ext. 4312 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: N/A 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 PMio Fine Particulate Matter Item B-27 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 2 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 ( )Agricultural Resources (✓)Air Quality ( ) Biological Resources (✓) Cultural Resources (✓) Geology& Soils (✓)Greenhouse Gas Emissions ( ) Hazards&Waste Materials (✓) Hydrology&Water Quality ( ) Land Use & Planning ( ) Mineral Resources (✓) Noise ( ) Population & Housing ( ) Public Services ( ) Recreation ( )Transportation/Traffic ( ) Utilities&Service Systems ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (✓) I find that althoughhe pro sed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a si scant a ec"t i this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed t t e proje pro t. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEC R TION will be prepared. Prepared By: Date: ' bltq Reviewed By: Date: i� Rev 2-26-13 Item B-28 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 3 Less Than Significant Less • Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PoSignnifiifi ally t With Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. • c) The site is located on the north side of Arrow Route between Maple Place and Milliken Avenue and is characterized by industrial development to the north, south,east, and west. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project as the surrounding development is of similar design and density. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and all frontage improvements, including the undergrounding of overhead utility lines has been completed. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The project will not increase the number of streetlights or security lighting used in the immediate vicinity. The existing lighting was designed and installed to confine the area of illumination within the project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Williamson Act contract? • Rev 2-26-13 Item B-29 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 4 LInoworated Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyThan pp g Significant Significant No Impact Im act Im act c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re-zoning of, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓ ) forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located on the north side of Arrow Route between Maple Place and Milliken Avenue and is characterized by industrial development to the north, south, east, and west. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addifion to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and all frontage improvements. 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. C) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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 Rev 2-26-13 Item B-30 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 5 Less Than Significant Less • Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact that are zoned as forest land,timberland,or Timberland Production. Therefore,no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project site is located on the north side of Arrow Route between Maple Place and Milliken Avenue. This area is characterized by industrial development to the north, south, east, and west. There are no agricultural uses within the immediate vicinity of the project site. There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land; and consequently, there is no potential for conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project.- a) roject.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 noted in the General Plan FPEIR(Section 4.3),the proposed project would not interfere with the ability of the region 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 air quality management plan (AQMP) (consistency with the 2003 AQMP). The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and passenger), and all frontage improvements. Therefore, the project is consistent with the 2003 AQMP and is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) Both the State of California and the Federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,o), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PM2.5) microns in diameter and lead. Among these pollutants, ozone and particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.$) 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 Rev 2-26-13 Item B-31 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 6 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ..-impact Impact 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 in jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the Air Resources Board (ARB). The combination of topography, low mixing height,abundant sunshine,and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the Basin the worst air pollution problem in the nation. The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude); this inversion (coupled with low wind speeds) limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality standards(NAAQS)for six major pollutants, termed criteria pollutants: ozone (Os), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PM,o), 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, PM10 and PM2.5. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include daily emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and consistency with the current AQMP. As prescribed by SCAQMD, an air impact study was prepared by Vista Environmental (July 9, 2014)that utilizes CaIEEMod (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. Short Term (Construction)Impacts There will be minimal short term impact related to the project. New construction related to the project will consist of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, Rev 2-26-13 Item B-32 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 7 Less Than Significant Less • Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Ire act vehicle parking (truck and car), and all frontage improvements. The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce the potential effects on the environment to less-than-significant. Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions(pounds/day) Acthity V'OC NOa CO SO: Pi411fl. PA42.5 Demolition' on-Eitel 1.40 12.49 8:85 0.01 2.37 1.11 off-site' 0.40 5.51 4.49 0.01 0.47 0.20 Total 1.89 18.00 13.34` 6.02 2.84 1.31 Grading' on-site 1.22 9.84. 7.04 0.01 1.06 0.89 Off-Site 0.03 0:04 0.43 0.00 0.06 0.02 Total 1:25 9.88 _7.47 0.01 1.12 0.91' Building Constrttction Ori-Site 2.42 .17:27 10.93 0.02 1.22 1.17 Off-Site 0.127 0.67 1.63 0.00 0.18 0.06 Total 2.54 1794. 12.56 0.02 1.40 1.23 Architectural Coafings On-Site. 32.26 2.57 1.90 0.00 6.2? 0.22 Off-Site 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.01 Total. 32.27 2.58 2.03 0.00 0.24 0.23 SCQAA4D Thresholds 75 100. .550 1S0 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No NO No Aro No •. Notes: ' Demolition and Grading emissions based an adherence to fueitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads 'Offsite emissions Som vehicles operating on public roads Source:Calf Iod Version 20132.2. 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 a&construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operation, and weather conditions at the time of construction. Construction emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place,the equipment being operated, local soils,weather conditions and other factors. The proposed project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust. Architectural Coatings Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are similar to ROCS and are part of the 03 precursors. Based on the proposed 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a Rev 2-26-13 Item B-33 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 8 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentially With Than pp g Signficant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Impact 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility, it is estimated that application of the architectural coatings for the proposed buildings will result in 32.27 lbs of VOC per day during the coating phase. The emissions would occur after grading activities, near.the end of the construction period. Therefore, this VOC emission is the principal air emission and is below the SACQMD VOC threshold of 75 lbs/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 use is 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. 2010 General Plan FPEIR Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures (short term) Short Term (Construction) Emissions — Continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy, use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on a project-specific basis and in conformance with the General Plan FPEIR. Therefore, the following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low Rev 2-26-13 Item B-34 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 9 Less Than Significant Less • Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotenGaSignificanntt With Than With Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: . • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated • soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph)in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent(approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans • include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-35 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 10 Less Than SigncaM Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wtn Than pp g significant Mitigation significant No Impact Incur orated Impact Impact The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the future build out of the City. Based upon on the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS7G) estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan (FPEIR), Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2),Ozone(03),and Particulate Matter(PM2.5 and PM,o)would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore, they would all be cumulatively considerable if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a.level less-than-significant. Long Term (Operational) Impacts Long Term Project Operational Emissions Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any project-related changes. The proposed project would result in a net increase in the number of industrial buildings in the project area; therefore, the proposed project would result in net increases in both stationary and mobile source emissions. The stationary source emissions would come from additional natural gas consumption for on-site buildings and electricity for the lighting in the buildings and at the parking area. Based on trip generation factors included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (Ninth Edition), the projects daily trips were entered into the CaIEEMod model (Version 2013.2.2). Long-term operation emissions associated with the proposed project, calculated with the CaIEEMod model (Version 2013.2.2)shows that the increase of all criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are shown in the table below. The table shows that the increase of all criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project would not exceed the corresponding SCAQMD daily emission threshold for any criteria pollutants. Therefore, project-related long-term air quality impacts would not be significant. Operational Air Pollution Emissions Pollutant Emissions(poandstdat•) Aclfs'itY VOC NOi co SO._ P:1310 P.M2.5 .rea Sotuces' 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage' 0.00 0.02 0:01 0.00. 0.00 0.00 Mobile Solaces' 0.:37 1.35: 4.89 0.01 0..70 0.20 Off-Road Ent menta 0'24 2.08 I28 0.00 0.18 0.18 Total Emissions 137 3.45 618 041 0.88 0.38 SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55. 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No :votes: !Area soturm consist demiswons fmmcuammar pmdacts,arclritectttal coatings,and tandscapflig egmpmmi _ABY. consist of.e firma nsttiral ps taaBe- . a WWe sources consist ofd fromvehicles.aodrbad dust: Off-mad egmpment.camsist of emissions fiom egmpmed2 uhlized misite. Smace Vi m Emvonmecml.e_culatedf oM CatEM&d Vasi=201322. 2010 General Plan FPEIR Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures(long term) Long Term (Operational) Emissions — The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report(FPEIR)analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the future build out of the City. In the long-term, development consistent with the General Plan would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon on the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan FPEIR; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less-than-significant. The following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented: Rev 2-26-13 Item B-36 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 11 Less Than Significant Less • Issues and Supporting Information Sources. Potentially With Than pp g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1) Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. 2) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. 3) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours. 4) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 5) Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 6) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 7) 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. 8) 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). • 9) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 10) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 11) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, the General Plan FPEIR identified the citywide increase in operational emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.3). C) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 4.3), continued development would contribute to the.pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and all frontage improvements. The General Plan FPEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-37 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 12 Less Than Significant Less Panwan ThanIssues and Supporting.Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No linvact incorporated Impact Impact d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is located within 0.25-mile of a sensitive receptor, a school, Upland Christian Academy, located at 10900 Civic Center Drive, approximately 650 feet northwest from the project site. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures listed under b) above will reduce impact to less-than-significant levels. e) Construction Odors (Short-term) may include odors associated with equipment use including diesel exhaust or roofing, painting and paving. These odors are temporary and would dissipate rapidly. Operation Odors(Long-term)are typically associated with the type of use. Odors from residential uses would include cooking and gardening. Similarly common odors associated with mixed-use and commercial land uses would be expected (i.e. restaurants). Local odors from the majority of land uses would be similar to other urban areas and would not be considered significant. Industrial uses could create objectionable odors; therefore, are located away from residential uses and sensitive receptors. Typically, the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) V) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) 00 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) V) 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? Rev 2-26-13 Item B-38 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 13 Less Than ® Significant less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiallyignift With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact 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 proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and all frontage improvements. According to the General Plan Figure RC-4, and Section 4.4 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not located within an area with a soil type that accommodates the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. Because the site is fully developed with an existing building, parking, and landscaping improvements, no other sensitive biological resources or endangered species of plants or animals were found on the site. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated with the following mitigation measure. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat exists on-site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. Therefore, no adverse • impacts are anticipated. C) No wetland habitat is present on-site. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) There are nine(9)trees located on the project site that conflict with the location of proposed project improvements; this includes three (3) Sweet Gun liquidambar and six (6) Canary Island Pine trees. The Arborist Report(Shamrock Arborist Co., June 21, 2014), identifies that although the trees are healthy,their location conflicts with the proposed improvements. All trees are located to the rear of the project site and are not visible from the public rights-of-way. All nine(9)trees removed as part of this project will be replaced in kind with a minimum of nine (9) 24-inch box size tree. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. f) Neither the City nor the SOI 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-39 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 14 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact In6orporated Impact Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project.* a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2..24 (Historic Preservation). Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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 grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities,to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil,planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-40 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 15 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. C) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the research performed at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Sphere-of-Influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity rating for paleontological resources. The older alluvium,which would have been deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 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. d) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site has already been disrupted by construction of infrastructure and 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 7050.5) states that if human remains are • discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State regulations is required for all development, no mitigation is required Rev 2-26-13 Item B-41 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC-2014-00493 Page 16 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than pp g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact impact in the unlikely event human remains are discovered on-site. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 1.5 miles north of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 4.0 miles north of the site. 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 16.miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is about 18 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within a designated Soil Erosion Control Area Exhibit 4.7-4 of the General Plan FPEIR. Although the project site is currently fully improved, 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 Rev 2-26-13 Item B-42 Initial Study for . City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 17 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: FoteitiWith Than PP g Significantnt With Significant No Impact incorporated Impact I Impact__ September to April,which generates blowing sand and dust,and creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however,development of this project under the General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM,o 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 PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. • 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 a geotechnical hazardous area or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FEIR Figure 4.7-2. Soil types on-site consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand (TuB) soil association according to General Plan FEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types on-site consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand (TuB) soil association according to General Plan FEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. These soils are typically found in long, broad, smooth alluvial fans. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. No adverse impacts are anticipated. • Rev 2-26-13 Item B-43 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 18 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentially With Than pp g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact llncorperated Iffivact Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ( ) (✓) ( ) Q indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: a) Regulations and Significance—The Federal government began studying the phenomenon of global warming as early as 1979 with the National Climate Protection Act(92 Stat. 601). In June of 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's Green House Gas ("GHG")emissions reduction target in Executive Order(EO)S-3-05. The EO created goals to reduce GHG emissions for the State of California to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additionally, on December 7, 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued findings regarding GHGs under rule 202(a) of the Clean Air.Act: (1)that GHGs endanger human health; and (2)that this will be the first steps to regulating GHGs through the Federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA defines six key GHGs (carbon dioxide (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 three to four degrees Fahrenheit (OF) over the next century. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the lead agency for implementing AB 32, determine what the statewide GHG emission level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit (427 million metric tons of 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 Califomia, 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 Rev 2-26-13 Item B-44 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 19 Less Than Significant Less • Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im ad 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 performance based standard") (CEQA 15064.4). Additionally, the ARB was directed through SB 375 to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved within the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. SCAQMD and ARB maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Basin. The stations closest to the project site are the Upland station and the Fontana-Arrow Highway station. The Upland station monitors all criteria pollutant except PM,o, 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, PM,o, and PM2.5 levels all exceed State and Federal standards regularly. Proiect Related Sources of GHG's — Based on the Guidelines for the Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G, a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community. However, neither the CEQA statutes, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines, nor the draft proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact ® analysis. Significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources,energy usage, mobile sources, off-road equipment, solid waste, water and wastewater, and construction related activities. A greenhouse gas analysis was prepared for the project(Vista Environmental,July 9 2014) using the CaIEEMod model based on the parameters detailed above. A summary of the results is shown in the following table. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-45 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 20 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: potentially tn�a, Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact .. Incorporated Impact Impact Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions(Metric Ions per Year). Category Bio-CO: \onft-C% Total CO._ CH4 NO CO--e Area Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy UsageZ 0.00 28.24 28.24 0.00 0.00 28.36 Mobile Solaces' 0.00 144.88 144.88 0.01 0.00 145.00 Off-Road Equipment` 0.00 19.01 19.01 0.OI 0.00 19.13 .Solid ltastes 5.51 0.00 5.51 0.33 0.00 12.34 Water and Wastmaters 2.12 24.87 26.99 0.2.2 0.01. 33.24 constmotion, 0.00 3.12 3;12 0.00. 0.00 3.I3 Total Emissions 7.63 220.12 227.7.5 0.57 0.01 24110 SCAQMU)Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 _mer 'Area sources const of GHG emissions from coastaa spiodtxts arcl itectaral coatings,and Iandscimg eft. =Energy usage consist of GHG moons from electricity and aatmal gas usage. 'Mobile sounxs est of GHG emissions from vehicles. 'Off-rood equiip.ment consist of emissions 5nm egtiipmeat utilized.onsite. s Waste iacludes the Co.and OL emissions orated from the solid waste placed in landfills_ °Water.inch>des GHG enz=ans from elecfnwy.used for tsanspo t of aater.and processing of wastewater. ' Co-strucii*,-;Kin arna tized over 30 years as recommended m the SCAQMD GHG Wadding Group on 1\ovenlba 19,2009. Sou=:CalEEMod Vemon 20132.2 foryear2015. The data provided in the table above shows that the proposed project would create 241.20 MTCO2e per year. According to the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance detailed above in Section 5.0, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on-going operations would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, a less-than-significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from the development and operation of the proposed project. 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, CH4, and N20. CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Therefore, the following mitigation measures .shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than- significant levels: 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with 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 We continuously for more than 5 minutes. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-46 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 21 Less Than Significant Less • Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG's Emissions — The primary source of GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be from motor vehicles, combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, as well as off-site GHG emissions from generation of electricity consumed by the proposed land use development over a long term. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to review the project for"adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure," to determine potential impacts of GHG's. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and frontage improvements. 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 worst case scenario with the understanding that technology changes may reduce GHG emissions in the future. To date, there is no established quantified GHG emission threshold. • As noted above, the project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility 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: energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy storage,water conservation,solid waste measures,land use measures, transportation and motor vehicles, agricultural and forestry and off-site mitigation. The project is located near existing transit lines; because it is an infill project, it is required to install water efficient landscaping pursuant to the City's Development Code; and, will participate in the City's waste reduction and recycling programs. 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: 1) Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 2) Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. 3) Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems, use daylight as an integral part of the lighting systems in buildings. • 4) Install light-colored "cool' roofs and cool pavements. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-47 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 22 .Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentially With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5) Install energy-efficient heating and cooling systems,equipment,and control systems. 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. Additionally, the City is participating in the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) with SANBAG for the San Bernardino County area pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375. The project's long term operation emissions will contribute to area pollutants but will not exceed any of the SCAQMD's thresholds. The proposed project would have less than a significant long term impact with the following mitigation measures: 1) Construction and Building materials shall be produced and/or manufactured locally. Use "Green Building Materials" such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way including low-volatile-organic-compound (VOC)materials. 2) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of; • Increased insulation, • Limit air leakage through the structure, • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows,space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures,and appliances, • Landscape and develop the site utilizing shade,prevailing winds and landscaping, Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems, • Install,light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements, • Install solar or light emitting diodes(LED's)for outdoor lighting. 3) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following; Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances Including low flow faucets,dual flush toilets and waterless urinalstwater heaters. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-48 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 23 Less Than Significant Less • Issues and Supporting Information Sources: FotentiSignificaantnt With Than With Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non- vegetated surfaces. 4) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. b) The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. No other applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emission apply to the project. The 2010 General Plan Update included adopted policies.and Standard Conditions that respond to the Attorney General and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions guide infill and sustainable development reliant on pedestrian connections, re-use and rehabilitation of existing structures, link transportation opportunities, promote development that is sensitive to natural resources and incentivizes denser mixed use projects that maximizes diverse opportunities. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of GHG's and determined that GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable, which would be a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction goals established by Assembly(AB)32 and therefore would be a less-than-significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? 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 2-26-13 Item B-49 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 24 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Im ad Ineo ted Im ad I ad 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 project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility designed for the storage and distribution of finished products and will not include activities that utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. 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. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility is designed for the storage and distribution of finished products and will not include activities that utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. C) The project site is located within 0.25 mile of a sensitive receptor, a school, Upland Christian Academy, located at 10900 Civic Center Drive,approximately 650 feet northwest from the project site; however, the project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility designed for the storage and distribution of finished products and will not include activities that utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site inspections did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-50 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 25 Less Than • Significant Less Issues and Su Information Sources: nMialiy With Than PPortin g SSigignificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 the FAA Height Notification Area where structures taller than 200 feet in height require FAA notification. This project is approximately 3 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. Additionally, the proposed addition is less than 33 feet in height, which is below the FAA height notification limit. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. f) There are no private airstrips within the City. The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. New development will be located on a site that has access to existing roadways. The City's Emergency Operation Plan, which is updated every three years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the event of a disaster. 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from wind-driven fires in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone found in the northern part of the City; however, the proposed project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to General Plan Figure PS-1. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. • 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? Rev 2-26-13 Item B-51 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 26 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wdn Than pp g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impad Impact 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. Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and construction project discharges. A construction project for new development or significant redevelopment requires an NPDES permit. Construction project proponents are required to prepare an SWPPP. To comply with the NPDES, the project construction contractor will be required to prepare an SWPPP during construction activities, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)for post-construction operational management of storm water runoff. The applicant has submitted a WQMP, prepared by Goodman & Associates (July 2014) 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 Rev 2-26-13 Item B-52 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 27 Less Than Significant Less • Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. Post- Construction Operational: 1) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Goodman&Associates(July 2014)to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) 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. • Rev 2-26-13 Item B-53 Initial Study for City of.Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 28 Less Than Signifcard Less Potentially With Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) According to the CVWD, approximately 35 percent of the City's water is currently provided from water supplies coming from the underlying Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins. The CVWD complies with its prescriptive water rights as managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster and will not deplete the local groundwater resource. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with.recharge because it is not within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Figure RC-3. Development of the site will require the grading and excavation, but would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 300 to 470 feet below the ground surface. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR(Section 4.9),continued development citywide will increase water needs but will not be a significant impact. The CVWD has plans to meet this increased need to the year 2030. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. C) The project site is fully developed with a 252,193 square foot industrial building, existing landscape areas, and parking (truck and automobile) parking improvements. The proposed 16,260 square foot warehouse building and 12,000 square foot canopy addition will not cause increases in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of building and hardscape coverage will not increase; additionally, 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, and the addition of pervious pavers in the passenger vehicle parking areas and bioretention basins to collect drainage flows. 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. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The project will cause changes in absorpfion 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. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of Grading Permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. f) Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is for new development; therefore, is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to minimize water pollution. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: Rev 2-26-13 Item B-54 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 29 Less Than Significant Less • Pally With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 2) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (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. g) No housing units are proposed with this project. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. ® i) 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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? Rev 2-26-13 Item B-55 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 30 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiallyignifnt wm Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco orated. ImDact. Im ot. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located north side of Arrow Route between Maple Place and Milliken Avenue and is characterized by industrial development to the north, south, east, and west. This project will be of similar design and size to the surrounding industrial development. The project will become a part of the larger community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site land use designation is General Industrial (GI) District. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection, SCAG's Compass Blueprint, or SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. C) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area.'According to General Plan Figure RC-4 and Section 4.10 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. Additionally, the project site is fully developed with an existing 252,193 square foot industrial building, landscaping, parking, and street improvements. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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 2-26-13 Item B-56 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 31 Less Than Significant Less • Potentially With Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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: a) The project site is located within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Figure PS-9 at build-out. A Noise Impact Analysis (Vista Environmental, October 7, 2014) was prepared to address both short-term and long-term noise impacts associated with this project. This analysis found that implementation of the standard noise and vibration regulations (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66.050(D)(4)(d) — Construction Noise, RCMC Section 17.66.110 — Industrial • Performance Standards, California Vehicle Code Section 27200-27207—On-Road Vehicle Noise, and CVC Section 38365-38380 — Off-Road Vehicle Noise) were adequate to limit noise and vibration impacts from the proposed project to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The City's Development Code requires that all industrial uses be conducted within an enclosed building; hence, no adverse operational impact to nearby commercial uses is expected. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. A Noise Impact Analysis (Vista Environmental, October 7, 2014) was prepared to address both short-term and long-term noise impacts associated with this project. This analysis found that implementation of the standard noise and vibration regulations(Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66.050(D)(4)(d) — Construction Noise, RCMC Section 17.66.110 — Industrial Performance Standards, California Vehicle Code Section 27200-27207 — On-Road Vehicle Noise, and CVC Section 38365-38380—Off-Road Vehicle Noise)were adequate to limit noise and vibration impacts from the proposed project to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. C) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. Because the project will not significantly increase traffic as analyzed in Section 16 Transportation/Traffic; it will likely not increase ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. • 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 Rev 2-26-13 Item B-57 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 32 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiallyignifnt With Than PP 9 Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated _Impact Im ad generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: 1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the .property line. 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. 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: 3) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m.and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally,if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. e) The site is not located within an Airport Land Use Plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 3 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. Therefore, no adverse impacts are 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 2-26-13 Item B-58 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 33 Less Than Significant Less • Fawan ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project site currently fully developed with a 252,193 square foot industrial building, landscaping, parking, and street improvements. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. C) Refer to 13.b above. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) c) Schools? () () ( ) (✓) d) Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Comments: a) The site is located north side of Arrow Route between Maple Place and Milliken Avenue and will be served by a Fire Station#174 at 11297 Jersey Boulevard, located approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. 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. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. b) Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 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 Rev 2-26-13 Item B-59 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 34 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentiallywm, Than Pp g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact as prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park, Ralph M. Lewis Park at 7898 Elm Street, is located approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service,which could cause the need to construct new facilities. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. 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 a 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 impacts are anticipated. 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, Ralph M. Lewis Park at 7898 Elm Street, is located approximately % mile north of the project site. This project is not proposing any new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. b) Refer to 15.a above. Rev 2-26-13 Item B-60 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 35 Less Than Significant Less • Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16. TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project.- a) roject: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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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) Implementation of the proposed project will generate 79 vehicle trips daily. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that each 1,000 square feet of industrial building area will generate 4.88 trips daily. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.16), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume, or congestion at intersections. All adjacent street improvements have been installed adjacent to the project site; however, 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. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project will generate 9 morning two-way peak hour trips and 12 evening • two-way peak hour trips. In November 2004, San Bernardino County voters passed the Measure I extension which requires local jurisdictions to impose appropriate fees on Rev 2-26-13 Item B-61 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 36 Less Than SignifieaM Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Ponificalr wrtl, Than PP 9 significam Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco Impact Impact 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. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and frontage improvements. 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. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. C) Located approximately 3 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is off-set north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. d) The project site is located in an area that is mostly developed. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking(truck and car),and frontage improvements. 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. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. e) The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles during construction and upon completion of the project and will therefore not create an inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. f) The project will be conditioned to provide features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a). Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm ( ) ( ) ( ) V) water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Rev 2-26-13 Item B-62 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 37 Less Than Significant Less Fally With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco orated Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-1 and RP-4 treatment plants. The RP-1 capacity is sufficient to exceed the additional development within the western and southern areas of the City. The RP-4 treatment plant has a potential ultimate capacity of 28 mgd which is considered more than adequate to capacity to treat all increases in wastewater generation for build-out of the General Plan. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and frontage improvements. The project is required to meet the requirements of the • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and frontage improvements. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 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. 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. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. • Rev 2-26-13 Item B-63 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 38 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentially With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. g) This project complies with Federal,State,and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AS 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 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 proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing.252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and frontage improvements. The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resources as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Figure RC-4. Additionally,the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street.improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. b) The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and frontage improvements. 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 Rev 2-26-13 Item B-64 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 39 Less Than Significant Less • Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Forest Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change and Mineral Resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such,the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts(CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. C) The project proposes the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and a 12,600 square foot canopy addition to an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility. The project site is currently fully developed with the existing building, landscaping, vehicle parking (truck and car), and frontage improvements. Development of the site change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less-than-significant levels. • EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier PEIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (✓) General Plan FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) (✓) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (✓) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH#88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (✓) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) Rev 2-26-13 Item B-65 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 40 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Signifcand Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco orated Impact Impact (✓) Arborist Report (Shamrock Arborist Co., June 21, 2014) (✓) Noise Impact Analysis (Vista Environmental, October 7, 2014) (✓) Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis (Vista Environmental, July 9, 2014) Rev 2-26-13 Item B-66 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00493 Page 41 Less Than Significant Less • Potentially With Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 pointwhere clearly no signifi ant environmental effects would occur. Applicant's Signa bf Date: j Print Name and Title: • Rev 2-26-13 Item B-67 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: DRC2014-00493 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. 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 Item B-68 Mitigation Monitoring Program DRC2014-00493 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. 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 after written 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. Item B-69 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: DRC2014-00493 Applicant: Steelscape Initial Study Prepared by: Consolidated Consulting Date: November 3, 2014 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Freguency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Com lianc Section 3—Air Quality Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4 in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, PD/BO C Review of plans C 2 the developer shall submit Construction Plans 3 to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction c contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4 performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance BO B Review of plans A/C 2 standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) 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: Page 1 of 12 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing.of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Com liana • 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 overextended periods of-time. • Schedule activities to minimize the BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • 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 3 vary depending upon the time of year of ao 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. 6) 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 Particulate Matter (PM,o) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) 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 PM,o emissions. Page 2 of 12 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for ImplementingAction for Monitorin Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Com lianc 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric BO C Review of plans A/C 4 or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that BO C Review of plansA/C 2/4 construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Long Term Emissions 1) Provide adequate ingress and egress at all BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. 2) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 vehicles and shuttle services. 3) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 off-peak hours. 4) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 CD reduce thermal load with automated time 9 clocks or occupant sensors. N 5) Landscape with native and/or drought- BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 6) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 7) Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV-MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. 8) 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). 9) All industrial and commercial facilities shall pD C Review of plans A/C designate.preferential parking for vanpools. 2/3 Page 3 of 12 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Com liance 1.0) 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. 11) All industrial and commercial site tenants with pD C Review of plans D 2/3 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. - _. ... F.. y„ ..,..51..'��u,..>..C...*ti_.su-...l..a.tvrsu...tr;�a.r,.�s:as•..,#�'..•.(. :'zC_...N..a .c.... -i,L�.a.,.......,._.tr�+.:.Zr„t,_3...l.S.:�x dS f.)....,-r..:.,r...nhF<._'3.�:.,>:_..v. ,.�4+s...„....4.:.,.E-i ws.,u,., ..`..."'$..:T�4.'•..:'4.y.;:x.-..S. �.L(, ..'ln�...:..�;:i..r:`..- U•,'.r:: .s' _ ' +.(. ,SiP.L:1T3:`k:<fii",4y(f-%-{5 '%S ^Yi.. LYQQi.•`•.;>::+ri trs.. ..5. ,�.?'4S{t.. .Z'.. _..'.i._.4. a..._� .3_ .a.. ,"'is:k�'.. _ .Y�_�.z.du::::::_':. :`i'`:'.✓. _ - 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 3 will: po • Enact interim measures to protect PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 w undesignated sites from demolition or . significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to PD/BO C Review of report A/D . 3/4 require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with P/D B/C. Review of A/D Section 21083.2 Archeological resources Plans/Report During of CEQA to eliminate adverse project Construction effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archeological sites, capping or covering site with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee. Page 4 of 12 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification. Date/Initials Non-Complianc • 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. 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 X; monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where =4 mitigation monitoring is appropriate,the program 0o must include, but not be limited to, the following �. measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained PD B Review of report AID 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- 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 PD D Review of report D 3 fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). Page 5 of 12 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification . Date/Initials Non-Com liance • Submit summary report to City of Rancho PD D Review of report D 3 Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy to the report to San Bernardino . ecoJ a( County :n.t_ Mr..us. e�.u..<m. .. .. ...... ...,...._ R-`�<.s_. ........ . r.L.f.�.........:__ ,..__ .[.,�. . ._L. ..}.�n fo < ..f-:;•.fair: ...: _ ..s,..,.......a:.:,.>.:<..l r .-.:... .:.:%':::'a?,� .::7.».i... _.-.%.*.aa,• 5^::",>;:i';r,+Y-t..r. 1) The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During construction A 4 soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)daily to reduce PM,o 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 PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when BO C During construction A 4 wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o 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 PM,o emissions. .. ,. .. p..a 4.........,.. ..e ... ..,,:'....,.: .:S..el.. '.?r .,•i +:::Ya, moi_". v :. - :c4n.:•J:,. 5 .34 _.3;• ...�,:': . :,gin' ie\:':tt'-+::F>>';u:::•`x.t a.,:.. ..._ _..?Y. .. r,..7 t�.... s. ..J,.. .[.. .... .. ..... .;t�....s.� s: `a"�-` :.ss. ..s. r uS G � (0 ..< _ .,. _ .:.. :..:........wx.�:.. .. .f � Y-.,..� ...s?,,� .... :..:u;x `jJs:�1 :.sc.: Section 7 . a, ee ho a as�Er�n s� n ._ _. . ,. . ,.,. _ .�<.: .,. .. .. . , , .. ,x:Mh•;:, g ..-.. .G .. . ..,..1 ..... .d...,:<.:....,.,. >.r, r. #s. .�:. ;' cYt..y..., .-,.. < _. ....,:....,.. ..t,..aa�,....::-,- Y ....:.. .ti �,_, . ..2 � ..,.. : =k ,.4•; ..rt �.. - i,...r� >,.a:>,� " 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 SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contactor 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 Page 6 of 12 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for -implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Com lianc 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 CADuring construction 4 than 5 minutes. 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 1) Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation BO A During Construction C '2 systems and devices in compliance with the C City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient 3 Landscape Ordinance. 2) Design irrigation to control runoff and to BO A During Construction C 2 remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. 3) Install efficient lighting and lighting control BO A During Construction C 2 systems, use daylight as an integral part of the lighting systems in buildings. 4) Install light-colored "cool" roofs and coot BO A During Construction C 2 pavements. 5) Install energy-efficient heating and cooling BO A During Construction C 2 systems, appliances and equipment and control systems. 6) 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. Page 7 of 12 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance 7) Design all buildings to exceed California BO A During Construction C 2 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 developed 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 3' (LED's)for outdoor lighting. 00 8) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation BO A During Construction C 2 ^' strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and. devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. Page 8 of 12 • Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Com lianc 9) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition CE A Review of plans C 2 waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educated employees about reducing waste and about recycling. Section 9- Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activities 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits,the permit BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BM.Ps) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific W measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are 00 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 BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 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 Page 9 of 12 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Com fiance control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) 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 Goodman&Associates(July 2014) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 6) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 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. 3 Grading Activities 00 1 Prior to issuance of buildingpermits, the BO B/C/D A/C 2/4 P Review of plans 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. 2) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 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 Dischar er's Identification Number) shall be Page 10 of 12 Mitigation Measures No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Com lianc submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Section 12 Noise 1) Construction or grading shall not take place BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 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 rt Building Official within 24 hours; however, if 3 noise levels exceed the above standards, then co the consultant shall immediately notify the C6 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) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 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. Page 11 of 12 Ke y to Checklist Abbreviations -M th 411 CDD-Community Development Director or designee A-With Each New Development A-On-site Inspection I -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 PO-Police Captain or designee E-Operating 5-Retain Deposit or Bonds FC-Fire Chief or designee 6-Revoke CUP 7-Citation rn 03 Page 12 of 12 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review DRC2014-00493 Public Review Period Closes: December 10, 2014 Project Name: Project Applicant: BHP Coated Steel Corporation 222 W. Kalama River Road Kalama, WA 98625 Project Location(also see attached map): Located at 11200 Arrow Route-APN: 0208-961-26. Project Description: The proposed project is the construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse and a 12,600 square foot canopy at an existing 252,193 square foot fabricated steel manufacturing facility located on the north side of Arrow Route within the General Industrial (GI) District at 11200 Arrow Route-APN: 0208-961-26. 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 proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. December 10, 2014 Date of Determination Adopted By EXHIBIT J Item B-82 RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF • RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW• DRC2014-00493, A REQUEST TO DEVELOP A 16,260 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE AND A 12,600 SQUARE FOOT CANOPY AT AN EXISTING 252,193 SQUARE FOOT FABRICATED STEEL MANUFACTURING FACILITY WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 11200 ARROW ROUTE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0208-961-26. A. Recitals. 1. Consolidated Consulting filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2014-00493, 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 10th day of December 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly notice 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 hearing on December 10, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located on the north side of Arrow Route between Milliken Avenue and Maple Place, with a street frontage of 875 feet and a lot depth of 616 feet and presently improved with an existing industrial building; and b. The property to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site is within the General Industrial (GI) District and are developed with industrial buildings; and C. The project site is developed with an existing 252,193 square foot warehouse/processing facility and includes 13,525 square foot administrative office and the property is fully developed with landscaping, parking, and street improvements; and d. The application proposes the development of the 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and 12,600 canopy addition; and e. The applicant submitted Tree Removal Permit DRC2015-00494, which proposes the removal of 15 trees whose location conflicts with proposed improvements, including 3 Sweet • Gum, 6 Canary Island Pine, 1 Mexican Fan Palm, and 5 Bottlebrush trees. Tree Removal Permit Item B-83 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 2 DRC2014-00494 will be reviewed by the Planning Director following the Planning Commission action for Design Review DRC2014-00493. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, 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. 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 Mitigation 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 adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to -reviewing and taking action on the associated Design Review. 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. Item B-84 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 3 • 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 Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the development of a 16,260 square foot warehouse addition and 12,600 square foot canopy addition to the existing Steelscape facility located at 11200 Arrow Route. 2) The proposed warehouse and canopy additions shall be constructed out of metal, and painted white to match the existing buildings on-site. 3) The addition of solar panels on the canopy roof shall be flush mounted parallel to the roof plane and not visible from the adjacent public right-of-way. 4) The project Site Plan shall be revised to accommodate 1 additional parking space, for a total of 143 parking spaces on-site. Environmental Mitigation Air Quality Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. Item B-85 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 4 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113.. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low:pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to . erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. •. Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. Item B-86 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 5 ® 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Long Term Project Operational Emissions 1) Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. 2) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. 3) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours. 4) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 5) Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 6) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC 01 measure. • 7) 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. 8) 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). 9) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 10) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 11) 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. 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 • Item B-87 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 6 protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification-without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating,the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archeological sites, capping or covering site with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources 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 reportof findings that will also provide speck 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. Item B-88 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 7 • 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 to 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 RWQCB) daily to reduce PM,o 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 PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions from the site during such episodes. • 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short- term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low-emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where.feasible. • Item B-89 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 8 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 construction crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG Emissions 7) Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 8) Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. 9) Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems, use daylight as an integral part of the lighting systems in buildings. 10) Install light-colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. 11) Install energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment and control systems. 12) 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. 13) Design all buildings to exceed California Building. Code Title 24 energy standard including, but not limited to., any combination of: • Increased insulation. • Limit air leakage through the structure. • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances. • Landscape and developed 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. 14) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: Item B-90' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 9 • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non- vegetated surfaces. 15) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activities 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to 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 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: • Item B-91 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 10 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 1) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by PBLA Engineering (May, 20, 2014) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable.growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Grading Activities 1) 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. 2) 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 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. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at .the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform Item B-92 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-53 DRC2014-00493 CONSULIDATED CONSULTING (STEELSCAPE) December 10, 2014 Page 11 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) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of December 2014, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item B-93 • '� Conditions of Approval GACommunity Development Department Oroject#: DRC2014-00493 Project Name: Consolidated Consulting Location: 11200 ARROW RTE -020896126-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. A. Planning Department 1. All roll-up doors and service doors shall be painted to match main building colors. 2. 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. � Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of plementing 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 $581 prior to the issuance of Building Permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation Measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. 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 hearing. Notice of Determination -$50 Mitigated Negative Declaration - $2,206.25 Printed:72/1/2014 www.CityofRc.us Item B-94 s Project M DRC2014-00493 ' Project Name: Consolidated Consulting Location: 11200 ARROW RTE-020896126-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. A. Planning Department 6. 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. 7. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 14-**, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheets 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. 8. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 9. The property owner is 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. 10. The 'applicant shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the Planning Director. Except for those trees proposed for removal under Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00494, existing trees shall be preserved in place and protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and all replacement trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. 11. 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. 12. A minimum of 20 percent of trees planted within industrial projects shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 13. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 14. The applicant shall comply with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board and Federal EPA water requirements. 15. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet. 16. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required '1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 17. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. www.QtyofRC.us Printed:12/1/2014 Page 2 of 6 Item B-95 Project#: DRC2014-00493 Project Name: Consolidated Consulting Location: 11200 ARROW RTE- 020896126-0000 Project Type: Design Review ILL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: A. Planning Department 18. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 19. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the. development 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. 20. 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, and Development Code regulations. 21. Building materials, colors, and finish shall match the existing buildings on-site. B. Engineering Services Department 1. Applicant shall pay development impact fees prior to the issuance of the building permit as follows: a. Transportation: $4,501.00 per 1,000 square feet of additional warehouse 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall fe paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at ast 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 Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. C. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit 1. When the Site Development review is approved submit construction plans to B&S for review off all the work proposed including the relocation of the permanent tanks.and any rework to the fire systems. D. Building and Safety Services Department 1. When the site development review is approved submit five complete sets of plans. Plans must be wet stamped and signed. E. Grading Section 1. 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. 40 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification -umber(WDID). Printed:72/112014 www.cityofRc.us Page 3 of 6 Item B-96 Project#: DRC2014-00493 Project Name: Consolidated Consulting Location: 11200 ARROW RTE-020896126-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: E. Grading Section 3. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California 13uilding 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. 4. 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. 5. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 11. It shall be the .responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 12. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s)to be constructed offset from the property line. 13. 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. 14. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 15. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. www.CityofRC.us Printed:72/72014 Page 4 Of 6 Item B-97 .vroiect v: DRC2014-00493 Project Name: Consolidated Consulting Location: 11200 ARROW RTE-020896126-0000 Project Type: Design Review ILL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: E. Grading Section 16. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 17. The maximum parking stall gradient is 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 18. Roof storm water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit. 19. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 20. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 21. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 22. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about. grading *quirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from he 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. 23. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of .Occupancy the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) best management practices (BMP) devices. 24. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. - 25. 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. 26. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification it umber(WDID). Printed:1211/2014 www.cityofRc.us Page 5 of 6 Item B-98 Project#: DRC2014-00493 Project Name: Consolidated Consulting Location: 11200 ARROW RTE-020896126-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. E. Grading Section 27. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way (Arrow Route) must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. 28. If the depths of the infiltration pits is 10-feet or greater below grade the applicant shall provide a copy of EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) with the Facility ID Number assigned. to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 29. If the depths of the .infiltration pits is 10-feet or greater below grade the land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the underground infiltration pits 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 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 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). 31. 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. 32. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent 33. If more than 5,000 square feet of combined asphalt concrete and PCC parking and driveway surface area are removed and replaced, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required for this project. Contact the Building and Safety Department for additional direction/information. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 6 Printed:12/1/2014 Item B-99. STAFF REPORT PL.I,NNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 10, 2014RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C,UCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2013-00992 - MIG HOGLE- IRELAND-A request to modify CUP DRC2008-00512 to include: 1) replacing a proposed 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot Baghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing a proposed 11,778 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3) enclosing the existing Melt Shop cupola within a proposed 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy, and 4)constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building, on 80 acres at the existing Gerdau Steel Plant in the Heavy Industrial (HI) District located at 12459-B Arrow Route; APN: 022913119. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and- Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15164 which does not identify any new environmental impacts not already considered in that Mitigated Negative Declaration. Related Files: CEQA Review CEQA2014-00020. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends-that the Planning Commission 1) adopt an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts that was previously adopted by the • Planning Commission on January 14, 2009, and 2) approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00992 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: - North - Industrial Building with storage yard; Heavy Industrial (HI) District and General Industrial (GI) District South - Industrial Storage Yard and Office Building; Heavy Industrial (Hl) District East - Industrial Buildings and Storage Yard; Heavy Industrial (HI) District West - Utility Uses; Heavy Industrial (HI) District B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Heavy Industrial North - Heavy Industrial and General Industrial South - Heavy Industrial East - Heavy Industrial West - Heavy Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The 80-acre project site is located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of the 1-15 Freeway and west of Etiwanda Avenue in the Heavy Industrial (HI) District. The existing Gerdau Steel Plant is set back approximately 700 feet south of Arrow Route and surrounded by industrial uses. There are two portions of the project site that abut Arrow Route, including a 330-foot section along the western project boundary and a 25-foot wide section that provides driveway access to the steel plant from Arrow Route. The property is bordered along Item C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2013-00992—MIG HOGLE-IRELAND(GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 2 the south property line by the Santa Fe Railroad tracks, with rail spurs branching onto the site (Exhibit A). Gerdau's production facilities are located towards the southern portion of the project site. The outside storage of scrap materials occurs in the middle and mid-westerly portions of the site, the outside storage of production materials occurs in the southwesterlyportion of the site, and the outside storage of finished products occurs in the easterly portion of the site. Employee parking and administrative offices are situated off the central driveway, which runs from Arrow Route, then southerly between the Ameron and Fontana Steel facilities (Exhibit A). ANALYSIS: A. Background: On January 14, 2009,the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 for the Tamco Steel Plant to replace an existing 6,500 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 16,781 square foot Baghouse and to replace an existing 11,778 square foot electrical substation. building with a 21,840 square foot electrical substation building. Tamco's proposed improvements were never built (Exhibit N). Since that approval, Gerdau Steel acquired the project site and.as part of their ongoing efforts to meet AQMD requirements now proposes building renovations and equipment installations to make significant improvements in the removal of particulate materials from the Melt Shop exhaust air stream. After evaluating the previous approval, the applicant proposes a different site plan and building configuration that reduces the site of both the Baghouse and substation buildings. The revised proposal reduces the size of the Baghouse from an approved 16,781 square feet to a proposed 11,853 square feet, and reduces the size of the electrical substation from an approved 21,840 square feet to a proposed 4,000 square feet. Their application also proposes increasing the height of the existing Melt Shop cupola from 120 feet (22 feet above the existing 98 foot high Melt Shop roof) to the proposed Melt Shop canopy at 135 feet (37 feet above the existing Melt Shop roof). The applicant will not'stop operations during the construction phase of the canopy addition, so the proposed 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy will be constructed to enclose the existing Melt Shop cupola. Additionally, the project includes the addition of 6,090 square feet of floor area to the Melt Shop building (which encloses an existing equipment cleaning area) (Exhibit B). The existing Baghouse and substation buildings will not be demolished as part of this project, but will remain on-site. With the development of the new Baghouse, the existing Baghouse will no longer function as an exhaust filtering system. The following table demonstrates the existing, initially proposed, and revised building sizes. Structure Existing Square DRC2008-00512 DRC2013-00992 Feet Proposed Square Revised Square Feet for Tamco Feet for Gerdau Baghouse 6,500 16,781 11,853 Electrical Substation 11,778 21,840, 4,000 Melt Shop Addition n/a n/a 6,090 Melt Shop Canopy 2,970 6,930 6,375 Item C-2 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2013-00992-MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 3 As summarized above, the revised project components include the following: 1. Enclosing of the existing Melt Shop cupola. The Melt Shop cupola extends above the roof of the Melt Shop and collects and directs particulate from the Melt Shop to the existing Baghouse. The Melt Shop cupola extends 22 feet above the 98 foot tall Melt Shop, at a maximum building height of 120 feet (Exhibit F). This existing structure is approximately 2,970 square feet. 2. Installation of the Melt Shop canopy. The Melt Shop canopy serves to accumulate smoke from within the Melt Shop, allowing it to rise away from melt operations and workers by directing particulate from the Melt Shop through ductwork to the new Baghouse. The 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy will extend 37 feet above the Melt Shopbuilding building to a maximum height of 135 feet (Exhibits B, F, & H). Building heights over 75 feet may be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit. The existing Melt Shop building is 98 feet tall and the addition of the 37 foot high canopy, 15 feet above the existing cupola, will not have a negative impact due to the buildings distance from public rights-of-way and its proximity to adjacent property. ... 3. Installation of the Melt Shop building addition. This addition is to a one-story equipment area outside the existing footprint of the Melt Shop, which will control dust by enclosing an existing equipment cleaning area. This 6,090 square foot building will be located on the south side of the existing Melt Shop and will function as an equipment cleaning area ® (Exhibits B & E). 4. Installation of the Baghouse. This proposed structure is approximately 104 feet long by approximately 72 feet wide, 78 feet tall, and totaling 11,853 square feet. The Baghouse building will house the filtration bags that capture particulate matter from the Melt Shop exhaust air (Exhibits B, D, F, G, H, & 1). Building heights over 75 feet may be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed Baghouse will be 78 feet tall and will be adjacent to the taller and larger Melt Shop building. 5. Installation. of fans and a 100 foot tall airstream exhaust stack at the west side of the proposed Baghouse (Exhibits F & H). Building heights over 75 feet may be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit. This exhaust stack is a necessary functional component of the Baghouse and is situated in close proximity to the Baghouse building. 6. Installation of the Dust Loadout Building. This structure, and adjacent 80 foot high silo, allows captured particulate to be loaded into rail cars for off-site disposal and recycling (Exhibits F & H). Building heights over 75 feet may be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit. This silo is a necessary functional component of the Baghouse and is situated in close proximity to the Baghouse building. 7. Installation of a 4,000 square foot electrical substation and related equipment (Exhibits B, D, H, & 1). • Item C-3 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2013-00992 — MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 4 8. Installation of a line of substantial ductwork (an average of 12 to 25 feet high), mounted on new concrete stands. All ductwork occurs below the ridgelines of adjacent buildings(Exhibit H). 9. Demolition of existing fan foundations for the ductwork leading from the existing Melt Shop cupola to the existing Baghouse, located on the south side of the Melt Shop and at the location of the Melt Shop addition. The proposed project meets or exceeds all Development Code standards, except for building height. The Development Code permits building heights above 75 feet through a Conditional Use Permit. The Baghouse, Melt Shop canopy, and Melt Shop addition will be constructed of rolled structural steel sections; the siding and roofing is sheet metal, which are similar materials to the existing building. The electrical substation will be constructed of fabricated steel frames and cold formed steel sections with metal siding and roofing. The Melt Shop, Baghouse, and substation buildings will be painted "Signal White" on the siding and"Ultramarine Blue" on the upper siding and trim. The canopy and ducting will be painted "Shale Gray" (which is high temperature resistant). The proposed improvements to the Baghouse, Melt Shop and electrical substation, along with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit, will allow Gerdau to increase production while substantially reducing air quality impacts. The revised project and construction of the Baghouse will allow for an increase in scrap throughput (the processing of scrap materials) to a lower level than the previously approved project. .The previous approval permitted a scrap throughput of 100,000 tons per month, and the revised scrap throughput will only increase to 80,000 tons per month. The proposed Baghouse will have an evacuation flow of 1,200,000 acfm (actual cubic feet per minute), which is a 70% increase compared to the current Baghouse flow of 700,000 acfm. B. Parking: On-site parking was approved under the previous application, and the number of parking spaces provided for the project was found to exceed the number of parking spaces required for the project's office, manufacturing and warehousing land uses. The number of parking spaces required on site is 296 and based on a summation of the individual office, manufacturing, and warehousing floor area calculations; a total of 299 parking spaces will be provided. Development Code (Section 17.64.050(A)(6) establishes that on industrially zoned properties, the square footage dedicated to office hallways 44 inches or less, electrical and mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, bathrooms and storage closets may be deducted from the gross square footage for parking stall calculation uses. The Baghouse, electrical substation, and Melt Shop canopy improvements are un-occupied mechanical equipment structures that contribute to the dust filtration equipment, and therefore, have no parking demand. The Melt Shop addition will enclose an existing exterior equipment cleaning operation (for dust control purposes), and although it does create additional floor area, it does not create additional office, manufacturing, or warehouse floor space. The Melt Shop addition will contribute to the applicant's overall air quality improvements and is considered a mechanical room having no parking demand. Item C-4 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2013-00992— MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 5 C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Oaxaca, Fletcher, and Granger) on November 4, 2012. The Committee approved the project as presented. D. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on November 4, 2014. The Committee approved the project as presented. E. Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC): The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was adopted by Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011, with the basic function of promoting compatibility between ONT and the land uses that surround it. As required by State law, the ALUCP provides guidance to affected local jurisdictions with regard to airport land use compatibility matters involving ONT. The Airport Influence Area includes the areas in which current or future airport-related safety, noise, airspace protection or overflight factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP. F. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 14, 2009, in connection with the approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a),the City prepared an addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration because only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration have occurred. A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required because there are no new significant or severe effects; there are no substantial changes in circumstance with respect to the project; and, there is no new information of substantial importance that was not known or could have reasonably been known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted. An addendum to the previously approved MND is appropriate in this case because a minor technical change to the project description in the original MND would be sufficient and there is no evidence that any of the conditions that would require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration are present. First, there is no indication that the minor changes to the project will create new significant environmental effects or cause a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The project includes: 1) replacing an approved 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot Baghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing an approved 21,840 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3) demolishing the existing Melt Shop cupola and constructing a new Melt Shop canopy, and 4) constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building. Considering the substantial reduction in square footage of the Baghouse and substation buildings and the additional square footage of the Melt Shop does not amount to a major change Item C-5 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2013-00992— MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 6 and would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the MND. Second, there have been no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken. The characteristics of the site and the surrounding properties are similar to those previously existing, and do not indicate that there will be new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Finally, the City has received no new information of substantial importance that was unknown or could not have been known previously that indicates the project will have any significant effects not discussed in the MND, that any previously identified impacts will be substantially more severe, that any mitigation measure previously found infeasible would now be feasible, or that any mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. All mitigation measures established for the original project will be addressed during the plan check, construction, and inspection of the project site during development. Additional or different mitigation measures are not required. In summary, the proposed project entails the expansion of an existing industrial manufacturing facility whose development was thoroughly analyzed for environmental impacts and for which mitigation measures were established. Although the proposed project involves the expansion of an existing building, there are no substantial changes in the project, its circumstances, or the information on hand that would suggest that the previous environmental review is inadequate. 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 plus radius of the project site. Staff has not received any comments regarding the proposed project. Respectfully submitted, 1,e CAAA- -1-Uandyce Burnett Planning Director CB:TG/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Vicinity/Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Proposed Baghouse Installation Exhibit D - Baghouse/Substation (Enlarged Floor Plan) Exhibit E - Melt Shop Addition (Floor Plan) Exhibit F - Site South Elevation Exhibit G - Baghouse Elevations Item C-6 PLANNING COMMISSION DRC2013-00992— MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 7 Exhibit H - Schematic Elevations Exhibit I - Elevation Simulations Exhibit J - Landscape Plan. Exhibit K - Grading Plan Exhibit L - Design Review Committee Action, November 4, 2014 Exhibit M - Addendum Exhibit N - Planning Commission Staff Report (CUP DRC2008-00512) Exhibit O — Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (CUP DRC2008-00512) Exhibit P - Planning Commission Resolution 09-01 (CUP DRC2008-00512) Draft Resolution of Approval Item C-7 i KMN STRXTU EI.. PROPOSED BAGHOUSE AND AIR QUALITY CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS GERDAU ;76! /— AREA OF STREET r��1.111,mr IMPROVEMENTS `Y _ uwaw icu,e I a,.o.T, I i . I I ! I i PROJECT AREA llsrcm�anm� _ � m m � La [Ilu� � m � mm woev�MTwxc u - ISSLJ i rnIT 1-1 acET. moecTsw,wx •nom i� t 0 - -- _ N Q O CL oR PIIO.LCf• Tq MO,lE PIAN pT1.0 ®GERDA AREA SUMMARY =Z= KMN --------------------------- STRUCi1,RAt ENG. / i4atp tea+ ..cen,aE r (N)FIRE IANf *.. .pmp �Nl F10.E VJtE ❑O °.wm"O°`E ro.wion s�a•i�.e. No<Wslar Sys,am Dust Loadout za4ssf Baghous spark arrestor Boos exhaust ductwork Qewer.+pr.n.+w..r,1 i e-F 4000sf _ I EVS,ixC pEt,SrgP c .I W NCE N R 7 E O L Melt Shop Canopy Melt Shop Addition m g Fan&Stack Elec Substation sit d S oCL ¢_ see Fire Protection ° w Plan for final Fire Lane a E� location a a PROJECT SITE PLAN PLAN .� SGLE:t'•30'd A1. i I STRUG ENG i ' wEp -I I J. ELT 5 W 'Fy. I I • • I.�.... -. I x fR I t RDDf, wplfll TMIIt :mo'ro wfw Ppo.Rcr—A pLl I I � I r S I 1 p•,`, .w I 1 I' I I _I I Pw I _1 E IwF 4w IL - � i IIE�srl Irr--ir--ir P•F I -_ -I ;._ I I L- J 4-JL-4L-JL IJL—JL_JL_JL—JL J - I I I -Ir-IIII vr�F- -Ir--Ir-,I n I I I i -I I- Ij ii p II u - II it n I _IJL—JL_JL—JL_JLJ O - v V ! I .� VCD N C N R N 7 E—C rip swap fro-) a m m m EXISTNG EM`OAC E STpIION rMp y c a CL E7 R .-r77) 4R aE4WTau PEW ,nt-r 9R af1141paw pA 1 1 r1 � But� STRUL ENG. .�xlLcw rn4R. TWG i arw.c srsm ' r r �I 1 - , r wo.E �: •: •�: :; -::. .. :f r llr 4w wYl IM sLxlRausq 4 `MIIbRT TE 5. 3400ULE IS: :MODULE ,I: :MODULE 1: :MODULE): :MODULE 5: a MODULE 3: :'MODULE 1: 1 (I v1 b� 1 ! I I c1 1['(( / � e`\IVMY sr� ---�_-- l :MODULE 14: ?MODULE 13: :MODULE 10: :MODULE B: :MODULE 6: :MODULE 41: :Y000LE 2: (�T :... .... .... ...: :... ...: ::.. ( „I I ] `Tp a[Lu[R, e' I KRP RAMPfM — .. M_a. ��....\-PPYMY•CCEO cE.o.rt a ,u �j Mt1[Aa i 1 1 �� - ]S'- - - _ _. ,.Ji_. .__ ._.I._... ._.. __u' 24'-6' -Ia'-1' I]'I' la'1' t t C ED c ED y O t EA ED BREAK ROOM C(� N COMPRESSOR CONTROL ELECTRICAL O . ROOM ROOM EQUIPMENT Q ROOM YARD Oa K CL STORAGE F.. b mn ENLARGED BAGHOUSE PLAN 4/ SCALE:fIB'•1'-0' pA1.1 i m X mai„ i BNlOB16 ..... SrRUC�nRFI ENn,� I I I SMOKE ACCUMULATION .----+^• I: 3p' I I —,4OPVI ABO,TI '.-.I I � I I � - � � 1 I• � BBBM i ---I-- -T II co«xc III noa S."f["a5"Mr CJ C3 �:. \j \j IEC I I I � I I I 4 N ... .I 1 ADDITIONI - r+ IL -Ir-�r-�r-Iv--ir�ir--Ir -�r�. '. _ I II II II SII II II II II I N ' J �_JL—�L—JL—�JL_JL JL—JL—JLJ I nr—'Ir-7r-1r—lr-1r lr—lr—lr-1 C o II II II 11 II II I! '6 L— JL—JL—JL_IJL_JL JL_JI.—JLJ 1 75 N 0 3 O L cu m cnsrixc r.e sxro Iro uun�xl ED a) cxrsm.c c�cTx¢a snesrenox.u+o m m acuux) O OL O R a•w k NRT SxBa Mw ilk RMI afNOv.1iD DA1.3 El—D Wall � 1181HX oxo•—o- o H B 9-e' m-1 � 9 Z O N O C = F 8 3 ({4 i SOD'-e' eo'-o• E1 tl� a Proposed Baghouse Installation f' 'Bj $ #f^ �x� aa$° N 2 [ GERDAU !§ I' _. --__.- ucxirn vj --- F m 'K STRUC FNG tj 000° I �i (D onwvsx I� i w n o.lscxz n wlcT owrtxs � � k C _ m r.P- :;:7– (2)KR'= I m I='{1N¢1RJUU1 °0 B.SF MlC SCRM MM,di I E�OIIBt! I X d 0-1 1{• x.r n pQ c a4 LL 0 =r-c- a-r r'-a• xr-a• =r-r =r-• a o � S EAST SIDE WEST SIDE cl I —T��'l r1 END EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS , SCALE:11B••1'-0- pA2. i m139tDA KMN STRXTURALENG, TWG -.hen— (D hwmwL(D - e f as n u-I IIIlFPR— C (D k. ni(R e[C[MR f 1 N emrz saa nm •r.o.eLo.a w,rues e-x.w w.rNr I e.o u¢rurz CL a Q� euosun[ •S1Nx camel rrc R � o•-I A• o ax--e- H•-e• Is'_1' 4•-I• ,'-,• _.,s.-�• 1e._,. - 1e,__ C7 u--e9{a ir.-- W-3, ' —..` SLS L SIDE EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: I/vc.ro• NOTE:NORTH SIDE SIMILAR rtnpn¢Lv A2.2 I re m X � � n KMN Mn, Dust Load-out building , Exhaust stack and fans— M � New Baghouse - TWG Melt Shop—. (existing) 1 i 00 ROTE HEW ELEMENTS­LL6ECONS­­DI­ -UGATEDSTEEL,SHEET MEL S1 NON LOIABUSRUST. TISLEPRODUCTS.•LLF M15HE.E0 TO MiTOH Ne W ductwork THE EwsnHc9HOP,COLOR E;vovE ORnr: —Melt Shop canopy VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST SCALE:^°^° -Existing Melt Shop o New StackCA - y N R xisting Baghouse t Cn =' -- Melt Shop addition 'D I k Q +@ Melt Shop canopy o NewBaghouse li ``�`�..` �•—New substation New Dust Load-out building ,'- • VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST u SCALP:— pA3 0 I s rn N Z Q N aEQ VIEW#1-BEFORE VIEW#2-BEFORE VIEW#3-BEFORE(LOOKING FROM 1-15 FWY) W LL o w- ,7p ; br,r=~bP�xoa VIEW#1-AFTER VIEW#2-AFTER VIEW#3-AFTER(LOOKING FROM 1-15 FWY) .+dw.dxaw NOT�E �a o.,.. a. .. ,,,,,,..,b.o..e.;...n,,.�n,,,�wx�..�,.., J O .mwb.ew.mrvm.wa.w�weuKsrn n.nr... .wrv..d...sw,..,w 105 i .n.en sn�e onbs�ro ncwx m..b.b.•e.eaw.+x.a.r.mna..urvnn wa AP8dj9l �.rvn.mmv.be�,,rwµ.r..hb.ewM..na�.E.ewx.eixduim"yvsnwn..a.vxnrvrvnrvmrneei.rvwmanb�.b..rrvvyblse.oib.an..mnwe,ed.wrow,v,..ar.un,,4ry�•,trrvaeaa r.,nNne.r��-�.Wxnti�lw�''meo-wabbMmrvt.xle.ae+eWr,m:cnnt+,rw,ryn ewenan.x �0g�.t V�_ V CLLVIEW V#3 H�lO�!J IEW 3 #1 6 �spie wx.e SeWt VIEW LOCATION MAP LL DRC2013-00992 ^ O mGER" tttttt�� KMN �rn $iRUCNRPI ENG. Ic"doh—! TWG jI ca PWA vuumc sc�minc ,-,,.^ C. 0 i I +.m.°v STOSED I P W YNl I m � V-�Kuis i w.s z b 10 p n 10 �r• o 00 Ip i i t i c I� BRIET STdtACE LC) 7 "< O O) Io - — — m p� O 0 QF O O ^.O `\ Bull a «� 01 p �stonAct .—.. �.o D Cd MONK LNroS<.VC UYgli,vl[ST PPOPFIIT.M[ , �o✓a _.- St.v[. .M a [�awv PL-1.4 x TY GENERAL GRADING NOTES: CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN _ Qo GERDAU LONG STEEL SITE 12459-B ARROW ROUTE z RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 9 w��Y�a n M rrrt�Mfamv. .uUREwi,I�mlL,lt lR N ¢ 1 rra,ru.rl.In.swal rxr nlWimawra.dvrn ¢nu+u o..asn Y.nrW,ly rr a twwsR.rr vOa5 ,vavvn u,wr IK axrr[mnsou rr 9a Uavra ava 1Pr1. a R,Rrr rw°+14r a M MIK4 ra dR:ss Spf 5+..and a surrV L.vrwx 7m.v r .. ,�uavuf,tlR.T.(OMA%ol a aaR aRr;[elw DRHS — _ W4 RVT,O•:RIYL!'wr 41 WtlfR ow¢-s.w wIW m alr[[ I' K uNi AR,Fan N eY-qn vt�SM[[calf uG ma[°O to.[SOT �y LL„_,N wOM,«Ilya rrlra w Ixv.xn.w sa v M rmr v,«r r¢n,rl,r°n,rn,a,vca,:ia.s v as Rror ra a[ME10 nw a sLLat ma¢u¢o- ARROW MOVIE M wls,w.wa wlNo a r,«m 1Nvac n Na¢aR:rF,a WiVI S tY flNnl[R v Ymr T r] — waw Iv rano:.x:r¢Irvu mVxvu s+r anv M ,vu'iu r r¢vrr¢rN rMN Rt—, 4VM1(.w:w l.ti,aM cl tm Imo.,!r,.+a r aM[{.Lt wr w fA[oY alwo[mt -- mI41n iq 1H'd°(S r�K SMm,161m.Mtl M.Tm R.1 W a lPn:[wM,MS 9r.f 9Pd¢F sY..-Kx M1 Ycml '.. ••: ' � .M –��––�__�__�__- -– ' °r• VICINffY MPP .:mow ,. 41 _ Y' III Y I EARTNYWRH QUANTITY Q s UTILITY PROVIDERS .dam a"o`°"a�_¢n��,a.�""”'°^` „�:o�.[��«a.w i' ,,-r•.-�.---.«.x,�—. -"��"a f w � I.:.... " R'°aE.mw M rswa Iwwon IaaR w.a[n ,I 1 r a I:.,o.°.. cnan . w..c....r W. -� .i,`-ri:Y' h,m'vw,lr .::n®arrndl YacTasl swoowrs r «nNrlars s.r a oNrr a I e ��ura�'::rorwPowxl.aor° I �'x. _'3'�` .. tlm 'Ipo"v'IM n n wMixE rw,s,w arrr.u sr,.x _ �w',rt ro[clda 'I "E�„T#. E.MoQHOUSE CERTIFICATES: n.n.o°w¢uaw�R«wa°.xla.a rw.,. .�I: '++; .t;T"'ROVEkI�'f'S' �'l. 4 AREA SUMMARY w -' - ---- -' I"F .n e[x I,Ea.or[wnrnl Aiwu,wu¢all w v urs lrailL.v ntw'�'i fin°°'o�=uui4..0 I I f ! t' `, wvaa ru rn¢va. Iw.�s ru warn+va a.wn u,wa rid, • l uRrla¢ t pa1LCY.Nrt fL°n ulv«[v,II¢,.Y RnRa.rl wln OrvrlrJH Ura MgOOL MxrK rr vrt =.ao as '.°`.r°ral�n Mw[¢rw: i'in"° M"iw[»ao a I' 1 r I Y�/ 1 BENCH MARK svrwE nrlu.r¢«r1 rrR.,w¢rr,rvcOa ,[all�aMN wrt.«r nxav,rN su+°rr drz .y[;. ns,a«Ya rauw ar• - t v w[.v[udvora saves+o was,ar[++ra6 r nr ... .I � I,�(.-- ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ¢ RECORD BOUNDARY NOTE: a; NM[r,wm.w low ,M.rrn.N INDEX MAP Ir,. I UTILITY NOTE' ,.. . �. OWNERIDEVELOPER: CIVIL ENGINEER: SHEET INDEX as w n solum nu Ua. n°na Iia pi as�w mrum M spun ro nr,R[ , WDID nlul ,Inpro,a N Ir mLKi w.YRwc mrmr,ua[OV - moor q.t mr,.r —° ' i v4a5_• fir¢ LEGAL DESCRIPTION ENGINEER'S NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR LEGEND ¢+ wm°w.LY ai r-v r amm n wn¢a�mws mwn w vx o.alR + r,w.,r�r,Iw,ua•.nl mlam.rnrtruw.a ro M,¢rxn w[Yrulra w.r adml a:,.[.exa¢a.n.rwn r+. —__—'�rnwa�cc.i ._......_ �-....� now t9 S ..ons:ia,rMr.I»,Ir Irrs¢,Rs r�o e. r an.p o vu Y,nT rawrm.a.rra ro wwn M lora w ar¢r =--_ ._.- __oal'.s uio(Iarc oo- norm. � � �1 ¢..w«.,w.¢o Mx ra w sMcwa nsc moo�r wwa>m IOL Im •. o..a'...li„�r as 177-1 J *n yA.'.�w.s°rau,n°"�"r io aw, �.owa a�a��rl[ woso..n[r...11 'num u I 3 Kla[m u "caerna v"'r.�'rwe°`"MO.w�a w�l:.:r��,na;.'r.4Oi�wllr"Irv.,.aas wNc..°i�o a� a I¢orw:r a.w o as.wrr.m nr va.v r ro¢.,,.ow.«nnrwnl .w umxm re..�uv aw Rv I ABBREVIATIONS :o wdr"asi e,o ne arioio ai"l,oir'.ci iivao,u sin.u"u er oa"`clnl a M""n"'""'""""« ["rr" r �J CONSTRUCTION DATES z `�min c'ia ro"'miwllmvi1O6lo tw°1iMr,ra�mam�«e m�rc��irslW:,;mlo w ui� �s[�.r m.sacla ca la � ,u,a, ? In¢r Y.n r.aa ra!•.rwE a as¢rvwau m n.n m scall r...or v°..w Ila m r Rra u[wairan u«r.,¢ ¢ n 1� +r.ax awa m mrYrt o`^��i.cmi i a e Aa1OT[. ' DIG ALERT CAUTION- pAl TOLL FREE NOTICIaEa�ua�N,MRAi4N'ORti'�re i i�[ cal wrrr U rs 4 Ica rl Ma r0 —_ _ t: ww,wa I ,x.vur4F- t°Hrn<.vn`pva M,uurilu'E '�E �°"a LL ORC2013-00992 I 9 ' ' ,i � � _ � ,� • �� �' � ,_ "' SITE SECTION•A' ••--• •�wwPrrYa - ' SITE SECTION"B' au „r - ... r 0.. wrcva (_• :i �...' I _ SITE SECTION-C' .L .. /._..... - n.c r.w SITE SECT�ON'D' 4q:rdal �FIrr40 ! Ylf _ , Al I IER � �l. A CONSTRUCTION NOTES 15 u� ... I ' LEGEND I ~ H I vaR wnrc , ! - - - - o - � � — r3 d1 N0I\ DRC2073-00992 LZ-D Wall ` t I / . a._. l ■p t y/� �` �� Jg 1 �` ' 'l � � � `•'fir ;Y�I H i \ 1 t 1 , S._.._....... f I 4 1 i i er■ ,� it 1 a Ifr("h t i i r i L 1 1 ga . a ( �I 1 t, i , QQSe Y i t r 1 / 4 I 17.777t ir1 , } m 0 0 p000 0 aO $O aO o o 8 N MICA REVISIONS --- �-- -. RANCHO CUCAMONGA 3 OF CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN PLAN GERDAU r FUSCOE b,», ��_ r' -- II �� y: .. _ij�t. � Rtwallclrro oEt•All r "°•Irma �^•• §"5 � -* ,:i z l'k'' �� }}��t `7� x'7.7 _ { zl.EvaTlox eccTmR aS"" ,,,ramua.v ,r•` y .. 5g . :,a'. �nK,M :E.n.• . :I� I�.`.:w d'ri•..:<•w`y�i:.:•":: •f f``rl n <r ....._.........................a '�.'A'.e.n_ l u v n.0 a.m r w.. a �a.a•.u srw °S MWS UNIT OESIGN MTA (:Ifl'QY ItdNCtIG I;l'(:ASIO;t(::t, I'..LI F'OItN1,1 s+exaw�� ENp-SHADING J JAa, m'Qw.�m`� � f• trwenrw rt K'54 -4-11 srsrEM O $ a L._.. ...._._.._ -. SEANMRODE N V. 3 seeRF C MIA-- --IT JA GI .N /1 ` .-:..'�.:'ri+w:.-. v..=_ -•«.� I id aG' MOIkRMMMRERi '-( 4 _ N ....-. •'. PIPE ENCASEMENT DETAIL nwxo•n. `� O ➢U b IM utstuu ox xorrs '1'r i -� r` -rl• �T. 7j£ fIEYAlIfAV NfW d0�� N rw unrw �� J ` a awin a rw. .vu.0 aww . uars.a.c.ws xm•vm.m on n,. a-.w mrm.wrnn..-aaa xra' — .aQ I aai wu..0 r •.m,nr I—S UNIT 0E516N Wle 1 __ Ns�raru�UEDUItit °" v �aw"li m -.+rn..a d� •v.. MWSL1-65-G Z 3 1 1DIYt. .lil _ - STRIMWARRWM()RAEx?YSISIEM l I -... �„••••�,� ___.__. .. I""_."1 � � STANWRD DETALL � Z jS� u Q g] J n U Q y]6 Z LLJ {zY 1 i Z O V A a � O ^ '201100992 i -- I EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES: ER NC Ma rrorES ! 5 ... . aFws.ae onnvE encs I ¢I®I.]•a w M Mno®M6 er;9W rYWL W eR¢,rimer lm� .. :.OeOc ms¢N R4r�rw WeK neRloS ep4 M rrr sNo:Iql ad K RPRm v Y Ya Orwt n0 LPMMM mYR ewYY • ' .. OmR�[ �„� � 9atlO��orr�.�i:Aum®6�n� > h _•' ^:�' ... �•� ' e:crs"4V�eRnevnu�E mvGrto A�IOP� a Y�wm I I . I4r ) �.. ... -.�/ .... - ..•• wid�vu c�i.�m ..mor�"ie:.�T.ot s er nc — .� surSn w Rror omc M — 4 I ... / ar ar wY a mo®o nm•Ra m Fwr v.o:ww4 °un PrOgm n .: e i i i{ 4\ .'.. .'•. ..•. _ - _. r¢rpa�r4 •r,1m M .._._ I it � ... ... � •... �:RM M FFluo r4 Fsobam M M .A:00 SQV¢� Q1I:vr w K i i � .�. •. V -rn .•.i .. _,_ arF:m�r�t olr YAc nr4Y a:6 c5w(I'� p r.M�`+�4 c6 q c rtYuu.•rnf.w { .. + �/ ' .. I.• •:.(, W _.Y_.. _ ti1w6 w r•aart r•w tggr,rra 6 9rc�M Mor6 • rfSf W.SCIW0ar0alc.6 MCu 9Ml c c®:w :.., r .�, , .. ...• _.. ;. •• .- _ ,.SMnI nid• •iR•n RrO w•af M Maar n M an YwK rw ' ��"•r •_ 1.Y aFRc[.ww:rR a"FS Sur 9wt F R RG v M m n Uw ttrr•c rr 11I¢•N L4rvY Ir�Vml gawKC �S' .ro nlslm �•, / _•• .•. •_ •• •:r FU M,-0r rMMWllnwdn alIDSY cR.�RP Mr006ROF VM.'r Yi14r'fPLL "nR FcnK rMY ar K FC O6�e®rNG P[F'96[un�r Y�i6"anw o[ Q i :r M t�Dn, rOaa[rw 9rrrA oR.R rbm6 mom, � purl r�Mr M raO.6 1 '� ._.......- .... ._ ` _.- ._. _. Rib ww NF rer® • allPec w BRi gat a R.aID w mar® •:':..( / •^ t t¢aRG F5r6 rc w c mPlrYne w wwrG Ya srrmc M u:n ...�. ,'• � �� •� � �:..._. _...___ - _` ••_. •_ •• n aWr Olutr[rlfa K j �...._ -. ....._ I"R�a�ila:acma4R an• .ar..P.r.a -. I.1 1 \��' ._. Y�.w mm w r.R.R,•�:�orw:o..rr,.ss:srr t,oN Not S ro .� I i ...: •• ,' � .- aoco.nn�i a,m:or n.Y w nRn mr,a rnr M�M mq���Ll�rwxmar,�.c�a�usac"u"� �}!�S . I 1 � ;'• .. i � I .-,_.• '-+ Mx..R.rs.rr.wFM ��qi�nP�:�..Q�ms�:Mp1 PJLLUPw � - �� • norE .r.R.wr. a _.__.... _ i a.m mm oY. winn , : ` 1 ��... • •s .', .. 1 .._... ..1 .MF I L . �... :, .. ... ... - ^ : .. .. .....ter..._.......: '.... 4.:� w o®rr w rm ,. ..•Re.Rr A�Raaa Y,F:.w�4.e: 1 '• v':• s: wsei.wr.nn.a:r A ol.n roo aerra c � .• .\ .... ....":� _ __ ______ .., ,.... GrvflEW(EU Oust CalINa SIGN _ 1 f: + .• \+ .... ... " _-'Y__ '' .. ....,...__�rlli�. v uN c fiV.V ra.mr _._.._....._......._..—.......___._...._...____......_._._ \'••• +\ •� / . Swoara n Crm N ora mama wile+Rws.a,c nonnm r:ei .d ><h K ......._. Frr crPp.M AN M>a P M roan n rm re aM ` \ •i t j ..••. .. sl.,:n Opp K w Orr". Ro41w1•6WwmP 4 rM. "w�-R trNrwra+� I �1 � \ -\' � t ... 1 ( .. ...� � WIW�Uinm09®n..rEIP a,49YSIM if a"cFYm rOMV :�Ss:/.Mw.wtWNi rY.iu.�Kwa.rv�Y�w�mwY:.r.p : i. \+,�• • •-.,• •. 4 FIR WwRw r6�6 a wL MRM 1. _____ JQ i^.�.. ) ...... .. «r ... is-• —L... � ._.. _ __. .. _ .._ '- .- -� .. D.:u•Y llw�rle)rRl wm um➢I®a'LS ormR•lraY'rAsn .w rR,a � . x ..r •/ _ - L IUP"w m61Fr14:�eMm i .. __ 1 •—r.,� s � ,-, w..ra FAAr:w rreer.n,R•..r�K .. ... _._._. ................__._.. �o ..__. .. ... _ - I u O 9 O (.1 r M omw.w,r..a�r r.YaR.wn M urn,a xF .r...4....a,rawa„r.na4,•w>o,�:.RM,A.w,a...:K:;.r�L r�,��n�`"a !puZ O M r R N Qi .¢ romwr W {i•� r�l rem/mm 1 a R-q q saR a.:an.rma R-:oi � nem wws 1 Ln0 � DRC2013-00992 i Sectiont D,smounary P,-,"w(s) Section 5 Inspection and Maintenance Respottsibili%y t ,s-t OW V40""n OW M�W+bfrtw to.a.5 taaAP aM sit M „o, for Post Construction BMP .. .,.....,. ..mow -- �rJ,�i r�4J, F.+•�W ur.M4+sw.xti.,µx"u.w wry w.w�.,�n++.+...w�,• �• "'�'x�"w`vx.� .w ,nwr4"+sa•n�w x.NwreNw.,w.w•�••Nw.1r er^w w e��.-T• .w.ww.s.. + .ur Y«i��.�i�a,www M� �...___ w - �...w w'Q..r Oar ..rw•..Mniw w�S v,w+rMw yw..�. . . �. M•"` ,..ww�,..� v �, �rt��413Ml4�. .'� Ajit s .... e....... '.."' `� ��.."' „•:'."�` ""' w,... �.w'r w.�+�'••c .-� �� r,. ..,.,rte ...,. ."".`..� Z= LAJ -.�...,..w a .».,a�"+.."w� •+rt• '� ~:o�:.'...rw�.+� w+ .r. �..... � +w yw'w.�"�...�.�".�t• .. �.� Yl E l l F ' �f\ EGE , c0 L-`�cr✓ t Z CL !._ 0 —TH OUAIW S .., 0 GD—U M PUN U .. .. GEII[MU V.VIOv.EN[5 - -.�s.crrccmm�aaT.v3L—..-sar.:vc-o-v _.N.CNO CUWWXGAG O ce S�.F 2 ' K CL uj i J chd LFORCOLOR UALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN aWQMP REPORT) ERSION OF ABOVE EXHIBIT, UMES,BMP DETAILS AND AINTENANCE INFORMATION ,o U- t. �.. DRC2013-00992 I i SZ—D Wali .. ..... : : _ 1 v J. ' t 3 ry r ' ; 66 . -- : I :• i t} t ........... J. 5 I ..... r•J{a. a e k >+.........1. V•t I: --k , :........... a � D Q n Qi GERDAU LONG STEEL ' nv,�ro.' ^"'s PBNf°^ REVISIONS RANCHO CUCAMONGA 7 F EARTHWORK CUT-FILL © 1 FUSCOE n. GERDAU 7FXHIRIT 77 .a,an `oma�" ..r ".,:• r.aw ��..oU u.,, �w wr.ww.ay.n•1. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. TOM GRAHN November 4, 2014 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2013-00992 - MIG HOGLE-IRELAND - A request to modify CUP DRC2008-00512 to demolish and replace two industrial buildings: 1) demolish a 6,500 square foot baghouse air filtering system and develop a 11,853 square foot baghouse air filtering system, 2)demolish a 11,778 square foot electrical substation building, and develop a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, and 3) construct a 6,500 square foot addition to the melt shop building on 80 acres at the existing Gerdau Steel Plant within the Heavy Industrial (HI) District, located at 12459-B Arrow Route-APN: 022913119. Related case: CEQA Review CEQA2014-00020. Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to revise a previously approved CUP (DRC2008-00512), which proposed the replacement and relocation of an air pollution control system and electrical substation, and a related MDR (DRC2007-00600), which proposed the demolition of 14,314 square feet of industrial floor area and the construction of 21,840 square feet of industrial floor area at what is now the Gerdau Steel Plant. This project site is located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of the 1-15 Freeway and west of Etiwanda Avenue within the Heavy Industrial (HI) District. The current proposal is to demolish the existing 6,500 square foot baghouse and replace it with an 11,853 square foot baghouse, which has a building footprint of 73 feet by 104 feet and is 76 feet tall, but also includes a new 100-foot tall air quality stack and 80-foot tall load out building. Additionally, the application proposes the addition of 6,500 square feet to the melt shop building, • the addition of a melt shop canopy to replace the-melt shop cupola,.and the replacement of the existing electrical substation. All buildings are proposed to be constructed of rolled structural steel sections, the siding and roofing is sheet metal,which are similar materials to the existing building. The electrical substation will be constructed of fabricated steel frames and cold formed steel sections with metal siding and roofing. The melt shop, baghouse, and substation buildings are proposed to be painted "Signal White" on the siding and "Ultramarine Blue" on the upper siding and trim. The canopy and ducting will be painted "Shale Gray" (which is high temperature resistant). These proposed improvements to the baghouse, melt shop, and electrical substation, along with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit, will allow Gerdau to increase production, while substantially reducing air quality impacts. The applicant's production facilities are located towards the southern portion of the project site. Outside storage of scrap materials occurs in the middle and mid-westerly portions of the site, the outside storage of production materials occurs in the southwesterly portion of the site, and the outside storage of finished products occurs in the easterly portion of the site. Employee parking and administrative offices are situated off the central driveway,which runs from Arrow Route,then southerly between the Ameron and Fontana Steel facilities. The applicant is proposing to complete street improvements along the south side of Arrow Route; however, no other improvements (i.e., grading, landscaping, parking or screening) are proposed as part of project improvements. Signage shown on the building elevations is representative of the type signage requested, but no signage improvements are part of the submitted application and will be subject to separate permitting requirements. XHIBIT L Item C-26 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2013-00992— MIG HOGLE-IRELAND November 11, 2014 Page 2 Staff Comments: Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. There are no major design issues.. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The previous CUP required dense tree plantings along the west and part of the south property lines to aid.in screening the melt shop and yard area. Conditions further required specimen size trees (24-inch box or larger) along the west and south property lines to promote the early establishment of mature plantings. All trees were required to be staked or secured with guy wires because of severe wind conditions. These plantings were not installed under the previous CUP and should be provided as part of these proposed improvements. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00992. Desian Review Committee Action: The Committee recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00992. Staff Planner: Tom Grahn Members Present: Fletcher, Oaxaca, Granger Item C-27 City of Rancho Cucamonga ___.._. E-N'VIRGNMENTAL-DI 1ECKLIST FORMV --- INITIAL STUDY PART II ADDENDUM BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00992 2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 3. Description of Project: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2013- 00992 - MIG HOGLE-IRELAND -A request to modify CUP DRC2008-00512 to include: 1) replacing a proposed 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot Baghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing a proposed 11,778 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3) enclosing the existing Melt Shop cupola within a proposed 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy, and 4) constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building, on 80 acres at the existing Gerdau Steel Plant in the Heavy Industrial (HI.) District located at 12459-B Arrow Route; APN: 022913119. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: MIG Hogle-Ireland Attn: Pam Steele 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 5. General Plan Designation:. Heavy Industrial 6. Zoning: Heavy Industrial (HI) District 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 80-acre Gerdau Steel Plan project site is a "puzzle piece' shaped parcel that is surrounded by existing development. The project site is set back over 700 feet from Arrow Route and surrounded by heavy industrial land uses. Access to the site is gained by a 25-foot wide driveway off of Arrow Route giving this site a flag lot appearance, and there is a 330-foot wide section fronting Arrow Route at the western border of the project site. The property is bordered along the south property line by the Santa Fe Railroad tracks, with rail spurs branching onto the project site. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750, ext. 4312 XHIBIT M Item C-28 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga ----- -Development Review-DRG2013'00992 "dam--— — 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None. Proiect History On January 14, 2009, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration in connection with the approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 entitled the applicant to: 1) demolish a 6,500 square foot Baghouse air filtering system and develop a 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system, 2) demolish a 11,778 square foot electrical substation building and develop a 21,840 square foot electrical substation building to allow the steel plant to increase the scrap throughput to 100,000 tons per month on a project site of approximately 80 acres. On May 30, 2014, a new application for the project was submitted to modify the original approval to: 1) replacing a proposed 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot Baghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing a proposed 11,778 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3) enclosing the existing Melt Shop cupola within a proposed 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy, and 4) constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the'Melt Shop building to allow the applicant to increase the scrap throughput and production capacity of their facility. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 concluded that the project would have "less than significant impact(s)" and/or "no impact(s)" relating to the following factors/resources: Biological Resources; Hazards and Waste Materials; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation/Traffic; and Utilities and Service Systems. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would have significant impact(s)to relating to the following factors/resources: Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; and Noise. However,with mitigation measures, the impacts would be reduced to a level of "less than significant." These mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Checklist and will be applied to the project. Analysis Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the City may prepare an Addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Changes to previously approved project for which an EIR or negative declaration was adopted require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration if any of the following conditions are found to exist: (1) Substantial changes in the project require major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows: (a)the project will have one Item C-29 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga --- Devek6pmentReview DRC2013-00992 Page 3r------ or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; • (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. An Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 is appropriate in this case because the proposal is to re-entitle a project (i.e., re-approve a project) as a result of a reduced scope of improvements for the proposed project. The current proposal is substantially the same as the original project that was analyzed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, proposed improvements associated with Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00992 include a reduction in the proposed Baghouse square footage, a reduction in the proposed electrical substation square footage, a minor increase in the overall square footage of the existing Melt Shop, enclosing the existing Melt Shop cupola with a larger more efficient Melt Shop canopy, and a reduction in the proposed increase in scrap throughput, although the scrap throughput is still an increase over current operations. Because the revised project will require a smaller Baghouse building footprint than analyzed in the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration, there will be lower an overall lower emissions profile for.the revised project due to the more efficient Baghouse air filtering system, a reduced increase in scrap throughput, less use of related stationary source equipment associated with the smaller throughput, and a decrease in the truck traffic and off-road mobile source equipment use when • compared to Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512. Since the project is substantially similar to the previous project that was analyzed in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, there are no additional or more severe impacts associated with the project. According to the Air Quality Study for the Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project prepared by Environ, August 29, 2014 (Attached as Exhibit 1), and as demonstrated in the following tables, the revised project will not increase air quality impacts or GHG emissions, and in fact, all emissions (including ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,o), and fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PM2.5)) are reduced significantly below the levels allowed in the previous approval. • Item C-30 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga -----Developmeent-Review DRG2013 00992 Page 4 -- -The following table demonstrates the reduced air-quality emissions for the proposed project. Table 1. Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary 30-Day Average Emissions(lbslday) Emission Sources NO. CO I PMta PMzs SOS VOC 2009 MND Project EAF Baghouse and Bumers 431 1,030 379 379 566 198 Other Stationary Sources 408 532 147 98 2.5 45 Off-site Scrap Trucks 176 35. 5.5 3.6 0.5 6.9 On-site Scrap Trucks 2.0 . 0.4 0.1 0.04 0.005 0.1 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks 127 25 4.0 2-6 0.3 4.9 On-site Product Delivery Trucks 0.9 0.2 0.03 0.02 0.003 0.04 On-site Off-road Equipment 213 1 129 14 13 0.2 21.9 Revised Project EAF Baghouse and Bumers 337 823 304 304 453 158 Other Stationary Sources 378 441 145 96 2.1 39 Off-site Scrap Trucks 141 28 4.4 2.8 0.4 5.5 Onsite Scrap Trucks 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.03 0.004 0.1 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks 102 20 3.2 2.1 0.3 4.0 On-site Product Delivery Trucks 0.8 0.2 0.02 0.02 0.002 0.03 Onsite Off-road Equipment 170 103 11 10 7F2 17.5 Difference EAF Baghouse and Burners -95 -207 -75 -75 -113 -40 Other Stationary Sources -30 -91 -2.1 -2.0 -0.4 -7 Off-site Scrap Trucks -35 -7.0 -1.1 -0.7 -0.1 -1.4 On-site Scrap Trucks -0.4 -0.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.001 -0.02 Oft site Product Delivery Trucks -25 -5.0 -0.8 -0.5 -0.1 -1.0 On-site Product Delivery Trucks -0.2 -0.04 -0.01 -0.004 -0.0005 -0.01 On-site Off-road Equipment -43 -26 -2.8 -2.6 -0.04 -4.4 Total -229 -336 -82 -81 -114 -53 Although not required to be assessed at the time the. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 was prepared and adopted, the following table Item C-31 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga - ----Development-R�vie.�G2013 9099'' e 5 ---.._.---._ demonstrates a reduced GHG emission with the revised project. Table 2.Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary Emission Sources 30-Day Average Emissions(MT/day) co, I CH. Ns0 cote 2009 MND Project - EAF Baghouse and Burners 6,710 0.13 0.013 6,720 Other Stationary Sources 57,300 1.1 0.11 57,300 Off-site Scrap Trucks 10,700 0.072 0.36 10,800 On-site Scrap Trucks 90 0-00060 0.0031 91 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks 17,500 0.12 0.60 17,700 On-site Product Delivery Trucks 42 0.00028 0.0014 42 On-site Off-road Equipment 3,470 0.14 0.03 3,480 Revised Project EAF Baghouse and Burners 5,420 0.10 0.010 5,430 Other Stationary Sources 56,800 1.1 0.11 56,800 Off-site Scrap Trucks 8,560 0.057 029 8,650 On-site Scrap Trucks 72 0-00048 0.0024 73 • Off-site Product Delivery Trucks 14,000 0.094 0.48 14,100 On-site Product Delivery Trucks 33 0.00022 0.0011 34 On-site Off-mad Equipment 2,770 0.11 0.023 2,780 Difference EAF Baghouse and Burners -1,290 -0.024 -0.0024 -1.290 Other Stationary Sources -500 -0.011 -0-0014 -500 Off-site Scrap Trucks -2,140 -0.014 -0.073 -2,150 On-site Scrap Trucks -18 -0-00012 -0.00062 -18 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks -3,5010 -0.023 -0.12 -3,600 On-aft Product Delivery Trucks -8.1 -0.000054 -0-00028 -8.2 On-site Off-road Equipment -700 -0.028 -0.006 -70D Total -8,160 -0.10 -0.20 8,270 Because of the reduction in air quality and GHG emissions, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not include any additional mitigation measures for air quality impacts. The project will be required to incorporate into the project, and comply with, all of the mitigation measures described.in the original Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009 (attached hereto). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum will be incorporated into the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration to explain the changes to the project. No Item C-32 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2013-00992 Page 6 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum will be incorporated into the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration to explain the changes to the project. No additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of this Conditional Use Permit application. DETERMINATION On the basis of this evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a"Potentially Significant lmpact"or"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated"impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that.remain to be addressed. (✓) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARAT=Jcdd s or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposs prepared. Prepared By: % IAP Date: Reviewed By: ; Date: "7 � _ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Addendum. I acknowledge that I .have read this Addendum and agree to its determination. Further, I agree to the proposed mitigation measures to mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: ��ivt6tt•-�� NCfPi1't-, /�I� �+� Item C-33 Jn Air Quality Study for the Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Prepared for: Gerdau Long Steel North America Rancho Cucamonga,California Prepared by: ® ENVIRON International Corporation Los Angeles,California Date: August 29,2014 Project Number: 0528453F ENVIRON Item C-34 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill Rancho Cucamonagaa California Contents Page 1 Introduction 1 2 Description of the Facility 2 2.1 Operations 2 2.2 SCAQMD Permitting History 3 3 Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 4 3.1 2009 MND Project Changes 5 3.2 CEQA Impact Analysis Updates g 3.3 Emissions Impact Analysis 7 3.3.1 2009 MND Analysis 7 3.3.2 Revised Project Comparison to 2009 MND Project g 3.4 Mitigation Measures 12 4 Findings of the Applicability of Previous CEQA Analysis and Conclusions 14 5 Certification 15 List of Tables Table 1: Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary Table 2: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary Table 3: Operational Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Summary List of Figures Figure 1: Block Flow Diagram of Baghouse Project Figure 2: Location of New Baghouse Figure 3: Plot Plan of Project Area List of Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality and GHG Technical Report Contents i ENVIRON Item C-35 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill Ranchn Curamnnga C:alifnmia 1 Introduction • The City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (DRC2008-00512, January 15, 2009) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for construction of a new baghouse and an associated recycled steel production rate increase(2009 MND Project)for the TAMCO steel minimill (Mill) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Since that approval, the TAMCO steel minimill has been acquired by Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., and operates this facility under the name Gerdau Long Steel North America. The current project(Revised Project) before the City is the modification of the CUP for construction of a similar baghouse (DRC2013-00992), with a lower production rate increase than originally approved in the 2009 MND. The air quality and greenhouse gas(GHG) information presented here is aimed at assisting the City, the lead agency overseeing the project, in evaluating the implications under CEQA for the Revised Project. This report compares the potential AQ/GHG impacts of the Revised Project to that of the previously approved 2009 MND Project. This Revised Project will not result in a more severe or new AQ or GHG impact than for the 2009 MND Project, and, due to improved technology, the impacts are reduced from the previously approved 2009 MND Project. Introduction 1 ENVIRON Item C-36 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill Rancho Cucamonga California 2 Description of the Facility TAMCO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (hereafter, "Gerdau"), and is located in a Heavy Industrial area in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Gerdau currently has a Title V and Regional Clean Air Incentive Markets(RECLAIM) permit for air emissions from the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). Gerdau is proposing a modification of the CUP through the City in order-to demolish two industrial buildings, add a 6,500 square foot addition to the Melt Shop Building, and install a new baghouse to control air emissions from the Melt Shop Building and electric arc furnace (EAF). This modification will allow for a processing throughput of 80,000 tons of scrap per month, which is lower than the 100,000 tons of scrap per month capacity evaluated in the 2009 MND. Gerdau has submitted a permit application to obtain an SCAQMD Permit to Construct(P/C)for the replacement of the current ridge-vent, positive pressure shaker baghouse(SCAQMD Control ID C5)with a new negative pressure, pulse jet type baghouse: The replacement of the existing baghouse will improve the capture and control efficiency of the EAF(SCAQMD Device 134)emissions control. The new baghouse will utilize high efficiency polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)type filter bags. This modification of the CUP.will result in a lower production throughput and associated truck traffic and thus, lower air and GHG emissions than the project included in the previous the 2009 MND, as discussed in Section 3.3 below. Figures 1 through 3 in Attachment A show a block flow diagram of the proposed modification, the location of the new baghouse within the Mill, and a plot plan of the project area within the vicinity of the Mill, respectively. 2.1 Operations Gerdau operates a steel recycling mini-mill and produces steel reinforcing bars that are commonly used in construction. The process involves the following steps: • Ferrous scrap metal including but not limited to processed automobiles and appliances is recycled and delivered to the Mill by trucks and rail. The scrap metal received has already been processed by a scrap recycling facility and arrives.in a form ready to melt. • Dump trucks transport scrap metal from the Scrap Yard to the Melt Shop where scrap metal.is introduced into an EAF. This process is called charging. Completing one batch of steel in the EAF may require two to four charges of scrap and can take 55-65 minutes on average. • After the charging stage, EAF heats the scrap metal to over 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit utilizing a 70 megawatt transformer, supplemented by natural gas, oxygen, and carbon. • When the metal reaches a refined molten state, the furnace is poured (or"tapped") into a ladle, which has been preheated by the natural gas-fired ladle preheaters. • Overhead cranes are used to transport.ladles of molten metal throughout the Melt Shop. • The ladle is moved to a stir station, where nitrogen is blown into the steel to achieve mixing and final chemistry. Description of the Facility 2 ENVIRON Item C-37 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel MinimilLRancho Cucamonga,California The molten steel is then poured into a caster to cool and solidify into strands of liquid steel. • As the strands move through the caster, they are cut with torches and cooled on a cooling bed to make the semi-finished products called billets. Billets are transferred from the caster cooling bed to the billet storage yards. From the storage yards, billets are moved to the natural gas fired billet reheat fumace (BRF)to reheat the billets to approximately 2,150 degrees Fahrenheit. It is also possible that Gerdau would sell the semi-finished billets as opposed to feeding them to the BRF. • After exiting the BRF, the billets are processed in the rolling mill, which converts the heated billets into concrete reinforcing bars (rebar). The rolling mill consists of a series of roll stands that progressively squeeze, twist, and stretch the steel to the required shape and size. • Once the rebar exits the rolling mill, it is cut, bundled and stored in the rebar yard for future shipment. Currently vented to the existing baghouse (C5), the exhaust gas from the EAF will be routed through the new baghouse before it is vented to the atmosphere. The dust from the baghouse hopper will be conveyed through screw conveyors and a pneumatic conveyor to a silo. The silo will provide approximate 3 days of dust holding capacity. The filling emissions from the silo will be vented through a bin vent filter. Dust from the silo is discharged to the truck/rail loading station. The truck/rail loading building will be operated under negative pressure and will be vented to the inlet of the new baghouse. The new baghouse will utilize a bag leak detection system. • 2.2 SCAQMD Permitting History In February 2008, TAMCO submitted applications to SCAQMD to install a new baghouse and increase scrap throughput for the EAF. The Permit to Construct(P/C) applications were issued to TAMCO in October 9, 2008. This P/C included the 2009 MND scrap throughput limit of 100,000 ton per calendar month. The P/C was twice extended before TAMCO allowed the permit to expire in 2011 without purchasing or installing the baghouse or increasing the throughput. Gerdau submitted a new P/C application to the SCAQMD on November 22, 2013 for the Mill. This application includes the request to obtain a P/C to replace the existing baghouse (C5)with the new baghouse, and to increase the throughput of the scrap processed by the EAF. Since submission of the application, Gerdau is proposing a lower throughput of 80,000 tons per month of scrap discussed in this AQ and GHG study than included in the 2008 and 2013 SCAQMD P/C applications. Description of the Facility 3 ENVIRON Item C-38 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project _ Gerdau Steel Minimil. ancho_Cucamonga,Off=ia—._... . 3 Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum The Revised Project AQ and GHG project impacts are less than the approved 2009 MND Project based on the analysis presented in Section 3.3 below. The City can make the finding that an addendum to the MND is appropriate based on Section 15164 of CEQA guidelines, which provides authority for preparing an Addendum to a previously certified EIR or adopted Negative Declaration (ND). Section 15164 specifically states: (a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be.supported by substantial evidence. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, once the MND has been certified, a lead agency need not prepare a subsequent MND unless the lead agency determines, "on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record,"one or more of the following conditions occurs: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance,which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was California Code of Regulations,Title 14.Natural Resources.CEQA Guidelines.Available online at: http://govemment.westaw.com/lin kedsliceldefa uft.asp?Action=TOC&RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=CCR-1000 Accessed:April 2014. Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 4 ENVIRON Item C-39 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau_Steel Minimi}1J3ancbn i amnnaa California--.-_...... ... certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the • following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C)Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 3.1 2009 MND Project Changes Gerdau is proposing modifications to the CUP that will result in a lower scrap throughput at the Mill than was previously approved in the 2009 MND. In addition, a similar baghouse will be constructed. Thus, the 2009 MND Project represents a worst-case scenario for the project. The Revised Project only refines the actual proposed design and associated anticipated scrap throughput; it does not include new components or impacts relative to the 2009 MND Project. Specifically, the 2009 MND Project included demolition and replacement of two industrial buildings and an associated scrap throughput increase: 1. Demolition of a 6,500 square foot baghouse air filtering system and replacement with a 16,781 square foot baghouse air filtering system structure(263,304 square feet total filter area); 2. Demolition of a 11,778 square foot electrical substation building to allow for construction of a 21,840 square foot electrical substation building; 3. Increase in scrap throughput to 100,000 tons per month. The Revised Project will result in construction of a similar baghouse and increase in throughput to a lower level than the 2009 MND Project: 1. Construction of a 11,853 square foot baghouse air filtering system structure (311,688 square feet total filter area); 2. Construction of a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building; 3. Addition of 6,090 square feet to the existing Melt Shop building; and 4. Increase in scrap throughput to 80,000 tons per month. The proposed baghouse will have an evacuation flow of 1,200,000 acfm (approximately, a 70% increase compared to the current baghouse flow of 700,000 acfm). This will be accomplished Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 5 ENVIRON Item C-40 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project _ Gerdau Steel Minimill.Rancho CucamQpgGalifomia with a negative pressure, pulse jet type baghouse. A negative pressure baghouse ensures that the fugitive dust potential from baghouse operations is minimized, and allows the use of a traditional exhaust stack as opposed to a ridge vent opening for improved dispersion, ease of emissions measurement, and monitoring. The stack for the new baghouse will be located farther from neighboring facilities, which will reduce the off-site air quality impacts. Lastly, the combination of added evacuation capacity and lower outlet grain loading will improve the removal efficiency of the system compared to the existing evacuation system. Coupled with the increased baghouse size vs. the existing baghouse, the proposed evacuation system contains a longer run of ductwork from the EAF to facilitate exhaust gas cooling and mixing prior to filtration at the baghouse. This reduces the potential of high temperature exhaust gas to cause bag failures in the baghouse. An additional material handling system will be used to handle byproduct ash from the baghouse hoppers. The material handling system will include an enclosed dust loading building operated under negative pressure, bin vent filter, a pneumatic conveyor, and a storage silo with a dustless loading spout. The existing EAF quench tower would be reused, and the ladle stir station exhaust would be directly connected to the proposed new baghouse. The Melt Shop slag loading bay as well as an additional enclosure on the south side of the Melt Shop will be vented to the new baghouse. As part of the Revised Project, Gerdau will conduct similar construction activities as analyzed in the 2009 MND Project. The installation of the new baghouse, however, will require a smaller footprint than was analyzed in the 2009 MND Project. There will be an overall lower emissions profile for the Revised Project due to the lower scrap throughput, less use of related stationary source equipment associated with the smaller throughput, and a decrease in the truck traffic and off-road mobile source equipment use when compared to the 2009 MND Project. 3.2 CEQA Impact Analysis Updates This AQ and GHG study also addresses the following updates in the environmental impact analysis that have occurred since the 2009 MND was adopted: • Greenhouse gas(GHG) impacts are analyzed in this environmental information, which were not analyzed in the 2009 MND. SB 97 required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR)to develop and adopt CEQA guidelines for GHGs by January 1, 2010. As a result,the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines related to GHGs were adopted on December 30, 2009, and became effective on March 18, 2010:2 These amendments state that the lead agency must"make a good-faith effort... to describe, calculate-or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project."When determining the significance of a project's GHG emissions, SB 97 directs a lead agency to consider: — The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; — Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; 2 SB 97.CEQA:Greenhouse gas emissions.Available at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/SB_97_bill_20070824_chaptered.pdf.Accessed April 2014. Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 6 ENVIRON Item C-41 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau_SteeLMinirnjJ Rancho-Cucamonga-Calfomia----- ..... — The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to • implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.3 As stated above, assessment of GHG emission impacts was not part of standard CEQA practice at the time the original MND was approved in 2009. This AQ and GHG study incorporates assessment of GHG emissions as now required under CEQA. Based on the analysis presented in Appendix A, the Revised Project's smaller baghouse footprint and lower scrap throughput will not result in more severe or a new significant GHG impact than would have been the case based on the 2009 MND Project emissions. In addition, recent regulatory responses indicate that the inclusion of GHG impacts in CEQA analyses does not mean that the issue of human-caused global warming is new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the MND was adopted, much less"new information" showing that the particular actions taken by a lead agency result in a new significant impact. 3.3 Emissions Impact Analysis 3.3.1 2009 MND Analysis The City found that the 2009 MND Project did not have a significant effect upon the environment: • "Based upon 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..." "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 imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment." The 2009 MND Project included mitigation measures for potential AQ impacts related to construction which will also be included in this Revised Project. 3 Natural Resources Agency.2009.Adopted CEQA Guidelines Amendments.Available at: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Adopted_and_Transmitted-Text_of SB97 CEQA-Guidelines_Amendments.pdf. Accessed April 2014. Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 7 ENVIRON Item C-42 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel._Minimill,Rancho..Cucamonga,Califomia_... ._. .. 3.3.2 Revised Project Comparison to 2009 MND Project For purposes of an Addendum, the revised project impacts need to be compared to the originally approved project's impacts. If the Revised Project does not result in a new or more severe significant impact, then a new EIR or MND is not required and an Addendum to the previous CEQA document is appropriate. Therefore, ENVIRON calculated AQ, GHG and toxic air contaminant(TAC)emissions for both the 2009 MND and Revised Projects, and compared the resulting emissions. Detailed AQ and GHG emissions, and corresponding methodology discussion, associated with the Revised Project and the 2009 MND Project are included in Appendix A. As summarized in Tables 1 through 3, the operation of the Revised Project will not result in a new or more severe significant impact than the project previously analyzed in the 2009 MND because this CUP modification will result in even lower emissions than the 2009 MND Project. 1n addition, construction activity will be less than the 2009 MND Project because of the smaller baghouse footprint, and thus, there will not be an increase in peak day construction related emissions. Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 8 ENVIRON Item C-43 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel_Minimill,_Rancho_Cucamonga.Califomia.... • Table 1. Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary 30-Day Average Emissions (lbs/day) Emission Sources NO, CO PM10 PMx.s SO: VOC . 2009 MND Project EAF Baghouse and Burners 431 1,030 379 379 566 198 Other Stationary Sources 408 532 147 98 2.5 45 Off-site Scrap Trucks 176 35 5.5 3.6 0.5 6.9 On-site Scrap Trucks 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.04 0.005 0.1 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks 127 25 4.0 2.6 0.3 4.9 On-site Product Delivery Trucks 0.9 0.2 0.03 0.02 0.003 0.04 On-site Off-road Equipment 213 129 14 13 0.2 21.9 Revised Project EAF Baghouse and Burners 337 823 304 304 453 158 Other Stationary Sources 378 441 145 96 2.1 39 Off-site Scrap Trucks 141 28 4.4 2.8 0.4 5.5 On-site Scrap Trucks 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.03 0.004 0.1 • Off-site Product Delivery Trucks 102 20 3.2 2.1 0.3 4.0 On-site Product Delivery Trucks 0.8 0.2 0.02 0.02 0.002 0.03 On-site Off-road Equipment 170 103 11 10 0.2 17.5 Difference EAF Baghouse and Bumers -95 -207 -75 -75 -113 -40 Other Stationary Sources -30 -91 -2.1 -2.0 -0.4 -7 Off-site Scrap Trucks -35 -7.0 -1.1 -0.7 -0.1 -1.4 On-site Scrap Trucks -0.4 -0.1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.001 -0.02 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks -25 -5.0 -0.8 -0.5. -0.1 -1.0 On-site Product Delivery Trucks -0.2 -0.04 -0.01 -0.004 -0.0005 -0.01 On-site Off-road Equipment -43 -26 -2.8 -2.6 -0.04 -4.4 Total -229 -336 -82 -81 -114 -53 • Evaluation for Potential Usef n o a MND Addendum 9 ENVIRON Item C-44 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project __ .._.... Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho.Cucamonga,California.. Table 2. Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary Emission Sources 30-Day Average Emissions(MT/day) CO2 CH, N20 CO2e 2009 MND Project EAF Baghouse and Burners 6,710 .0.13 0.013 6,720 Other Stationary Sources 57,300 1.1 0.11 57,300 Off-site Scrap Trucks 10,700 0.072 0.36 10,800 On-site Scrap Trucks 90 0.00060 0.0031 91 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks 17,500 0.12 0.60 17,700 On-site Product Delivery Trucks 42 0.00028 0.0014 42 On-site Off-road Equipment 3,470 0.14 0.03 3,480 Revised Project EAF Baghouse and Burners 5,420 0.10 0.010 5,430 Other Stationary Sources 56,800 1.1 0.11 56,800 Off-site Scrap Trucks 8,560 0.057 0.29 8,650 On-site Scrap Trucks 72 0.00048 0.0024 73 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks 14,000 0.094 0.48 14,100 On-site Product Delivery Trucks 33 0.00022 0.0011 34 On-site Off-road Equipment 2,770 0.11 0.023 2,780 Difference EAF Baghouse and Burners -1,290 -0.024 -0.0024 -1,290 Other Stationary Sources -500 -0.011 -0.0014 -500 Off-site Scrap Trucks -2,140 -0.014 -0.073 -2,150. On-site Scrap Trucks -18 -0.00012 -0.00062 -18 Off-site Product Delivery Trucks -3,500 -0.023 -0.12 -3,600 On-site Product Delivery Trucks -8.1 -0.000054 -0.00028 -8.2 On-site Off-road Equipment -700 -0.028 -0.006 -700 Total -8,160 -0.10 -0.20 -8,270 Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 10 ENVIRON Item C-45 Melt Shop Evacuation and Beghouse Project Gerdau Slee]Minimill.Rancho Cucamonga.Califomia Table 3.Operational Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Summary 2009 MND Project-30-Day Average Emissions(lbslday) Revised Project=30-Day Average Emissions(lbslday) Difference In 30- Pollutant CAS EAF On-Site EAF Onsite Day Average Number Ba house Stationary Onsite Product Off-Road Bagh use Stationary On-Site Product Off-Road Emissions and Burner Sources' Delivery Trucks' Trucks' Equlpmentl Total and Burner Sources, Delivery Trucks' Scrap Equipment' Total (lbslday) Inorganic TACs' Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.0034 0.0053 - - - 0.0087 . 0.0027 0.0041 - - 0.0069 -0.0018' Beryllium 7440-41-7 0.0027 0.00068 - 0.0034 0.0022 0.00054 - 0.0027 -0.00068 Cadmium 744043-9 0.070 0.0029 - 0.073 0.056 0.0022 - 0.058 -0.015 i Hexavalent Chromium 18540-29.9 0.035 0.0000073 - 0.035 0.028 0.0000020 - - 0.028 -0.0071 Copper 7440-50-8 0.89 - - - 0.89 0.71 - - 0.71 -0.18 Lead 7439-92-1 5.7 0.049 - 5.8 4.6 0.039 - - 4.6 -1.2 Manganese 7439-96-5 4.7 - - - - 4.7 3.8 - - - 3.8 -0.95 Mercury 7439-97-6 2.2 - - - 2.2 1.8 1.8 -0.45 Nickel 744D•02-0 0.14 0.010 - 0.15 0.11 0.0075 - - 0.12 -0.029 r+ Selenium 7782-49-2 0.016 - - - - 0.016 0.013 - - - - 0.013 -0.0032 Diesel Particulate Mailer - 0.015 0.032 14.2 14.2 - - 0.012 0.026 11.4 11.4 -2.8 C'1 Organic TACs' j 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 0.11 0.11 0.083 0.083 -0.031 ' 01 -Benzene 71-43.2 0.0010 0.43 - - 0.43 0.00080 0.34 0.34 -0.092 Formaldehyde SO-OD-0 0.0021 0.51 0.52 0.0017 0.35 0.35 -0.17 Total PAHs(excluding 1151 0.000017 0.0029 0.0030 0.000014 0.0010 0.0010 -0.0019 Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.000051 0.018 0.018 0.000042 0.014 0.014 0.0042` Acetatdeh de 75-07-0 0.00053 - 0.00053 0.00043 0.00043 -0.00010 Acrolein 107-02-8 0.00046 - 0.00046 0.00037 0.00037 -0.000089 Ammonia(No SCRNSCR) 766441-7 1.1 9.3 10.4 0.89 9.2 10.1 -0.32 Ethylbenzena 100.41-4 0.0012 - 0.0012 0.0010 0.0010 -0.00023. Hexane 110-54-3 0.00079 0.00079 0.00064 0.00064 -0.00015 Toluene 108-88-3 0.0045 0.0045 0.0037 0.0037 -0.00087 Xyfene 1330-20-7 0.0034 - 0.0034 0.00270.0027 0.00065 Dioxins 1086 0.0000053 - 0.000005 0.0000043 000 . 00043 0.0000011 Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum t l ENVIRON Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project _. _. _. .. GerdauSteel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California 3.4 Mitigation Measures In addition, the Revised Project AQ and GHG impacts will not require additional mitigation measures than those previously discussed in the 2009 MND. The following mitigation measures listed in the 2009 MND will be incorporated into the current project to further reduce construction emissions: 1. All construction equipment will be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor will ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records will be available at the construction site for City verification. 2. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, Gerdau will submit Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors will 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 will also conform to any construction measures imposed by the SCAQMD as well as the City Planning staff. 3. All paints and coatings will meet or exceed performance standards in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings will be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray. 4. All asphalt will meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5. All construction equipment will comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors will include the following provisions: a. Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. b. Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. c. Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. d. Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of the work periods. e. Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. f. Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or-occur as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. g. Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e. wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. h. Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6. The site will be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent(approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 12 ENVIRON Item C-47 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project .... ._. Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California 7. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)will be applied to all • inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8. The construction contractor will utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 9. The construction contractor will ensure that Construction Grading Plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 10. All industrial and commercial facilities will post signs requiring that trucks will not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 11. All industrial and commercial facilities will designate preferential parking for vanpools. 12.All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees will be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 13.All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees will be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. • • Evaluation for Potential Use of an MND Addendum 13 ENVIRON Item C-48 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California 4 Findings of the Applicability of Previous CEQA Analysis and Conclusions Modification of the previous, approved 2009 MND Project to account for a similar capacity baghouse(with a smaller footprint)and lower scrap throughput does not constitute a substantial change to the project that would require major revisions to the MND because there are no new significant environmental impacts and there were no identified significant effects. Based on the discussion above and the clarifying information presented Appendix A, modification of CUP (DRC2008-00512)will not create new or greater significant environmental impacts than those identified in the approved 2009 MND, and as such, a subsequent MND to address this new information is not required based on potential AQ and GHG impacts. Findings of the Applicability of Previous CEQA Analysis and Conclusions 14 ENVIRON Item C-49 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill, Rancho Cucamonga, California 5 Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the appendices, or those incorporated by reference, present the data and information required for this evaluation to the best of my ability and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. >j ppFESs" a ��QtyOyQN W. a � No.22116 9 m Exp.12/31/15 rM Au Qust 29. 2014 Signature * �AN�oPv * Date OFCAU Joseph W. Hower Principal 213.943.6319 Name Title Telephone ENVIRON International Corp 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4950 Los Angeles, California 90017 213.943.6300 C:1UserslrvelthuisenlDesktoplGerdau EAF Baghouse Air Quality Study.docx Certification 15 ENVIRON �-so Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California Figures ENVIRON ��_r � r4 IL Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga, California Appendix A Air Quality and GHG Technical Report ENVIRON Item C-52 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project J Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California Contents Page 1 Introduction 3 2 Construction Emissions 4 3 Operational Emissions 6 3.1 Criteria Air Pollutants 6 3.1.1 Electric Arc Furnace 6 3.1.2 Other Stationary Sources 7 3.1.3 Off-Road Equipment 8 3.1.4 Scrap Trucks 8 3.1.5 Product Delivery Trucks 9 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 9 3.2.1 Electric Arc Furnace 9 3.2.2 Other Stationary Sources 9 3.2.3 Off-Road Equipment 10 3.2.4 Scrap Trucks 10 3.2.5 Product Delivery Trucks 10 3.2.6 Greenhouse Emissions from Steel Production 11 3.3 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions 11 3.3.1 Electric Arc Furnace 11 3.3.2 Other Stationary Sources 11 3.3.3 Off-Road Equipment, Scrap Truck,and Product Delivery Truck 12 List of Tables Table 1. Construction Phases and Duration Table 2. Construction Equipment List Table 3. CalEEMod Default Input Parameters for Estimating Emissions from the Traffic Table 4. CaIEEMod Default Input Parameters for Dust from Material Movement Table 5. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Construction Table 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction Table 7. Operating Conditions for the Electric Arc Furnace Table 8. Particulate Matter Emission Factors Table 9. Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for the EAF Baghouse and Burner Table 10. 30-Day Average Emissions from the EAF Baghouse and Burner Table 11. Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors from Stationary Sources Table 12. Cooling Tower System Parameters Table 13. Stationary Emission Sources and Throughputs Table 14. NOx Emission Factor for the Billet Reheat Furnace Table 15 PM2.5 Fraction of PM 10 Table 16. Monthly Distribution of Steel Production in 2013 Table 17. Throughputs and Scaling Factors Appendix A 1 ENVIRON Item C-53 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga;California List of Tables(continued) • Table 18. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Stationary Sources Table 19. 2016 Calendar Year Emission Factors for Offroad Equipment Table 20. 2013 Offroad Equipment Data Table 21. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Off-Road Equipment Table 22. 30-Day Average Off-site Emissions from Scrap Trucks Table 23. 30-Day Average On-site Emissions from Scrap Trucks Table 24. 2016 Calendar Year Emission Factors for Trucks Table 25. 2013 Scrap Truck Data Table 26. Monthly Distribution of Scrap Trucks in 2013 Table 27. 30-Day Average Off-site Emissions from Product Delivery Trucks Table 28. 30-Day Average On-site Emissions from Product Delivery Trucks Table 29. 2013 Product Delivery Truck Data Table 30. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the EAF Burner Table 31. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stationary Equipment Table 32. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Off-Road Equipment Table 33 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from the EAF Baghouse and Burner Table 34. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Factors from Stationary Sources Table 35. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Stationary Sources • Appendix A 2 ENVIRON Item C-54 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1 Introduction TAMCO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (hereafter, Gerdau), and is located in a Heavy Industrial area in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). Gerdau is a steel recycling mini=mill (Mill)and produces steel reinforcing bars that are commonly used in construction. The steel scrap is recycled and delivered to the Mill by trucks, and then melted in an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF)to produce steel billets. The billets are reheated in a reheat furnace to form steel reinforcing rods. Gerdau is proposing to add a 6,090 square feet enclosure to the Melt Shop Building and install a new baghouse to control air emissions from the Melt Shop Building and EAF. This modification to the City's Conditional Use Permit(Revised Project)will allow for a processing throughput of 80,000 tons of scrap per month. This throughput is lower than the 100,000 tons of scrap per month capacity analyzed in the 2009 Mitigated Negative Declaration (2009 MND Project) previously adopted by the City and thus, would result in the lower impacts compared to the 2009 MND Project. In addition, Gerdau proposes to replace its existing diesel light stands with solar/electric units, further decreasing operational emissions. .To evaluate the potential air quality changes, ENVIRON estimated the air emissions for the criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gas (GHG), and toxic air contaminants(TAC)associated with this proposed modification and compared the resulting emissions to those for the previously approved 2009 MND Project: This appendix presents the methodology used for quantifying the air emission impacts associated with the Revised Project and the 2009 MND Project. Emissions will occur from both construction and operational sources. Construction activities will generate on-site emissions from off-road construction equipment, and off-site emissions from construction-related truck hauling, vendor deliveries, and worker commuting. Operational emissions sources include normal facility operations, on-site and off-site traffic, and on-site off-road equipment. Appendix A 3 ENVIRON Item C-55 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill, Rancho Cucamonga, California 2 Construction Emissions Construction activities for the Revised Project will include replacement of the existing baghouse with a new baghouse air filtering system and an electrical substation building, and addition of 6,090 square feet of enclosure to the existing Melt Shop building. The proposed construction schedule for this project is estimated to require approximately twelve months, starting in early-to-mid 2015. The construction involves site preparation, grading, and building construction; the construction duration is shown in Table 1. ENVIRON used the California Emission Estimator Model version 2013.2.2 (CaIEEModTM)' to quantify the criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from construction of the proposed baghouse. CaIEEModTm is a statewide program designed to calculate both criteria and GHG emissions from development projects in California. This model was developed under the auspices of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)who received input from other California air districts, and is currently supported by several lead agencies for use in quantifying the emissions associated with development projects undergoing environmental review. CaIEEModTm uses widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data that can be used if site-specific information is not available. These models and default estimates use sources such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)AP-42 emission factors'2 CARB's on-road and off-road equipment emission models such as the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) and the Off-road Emissions Inventory Program model (OFFROAD). • ENVIRON obtained inputs for CaIEEModTM such as construction schedule, off-road construction equipment lists, equipment specifications, and daily trip counts for workers and haul trucks from Gerdau. ENVIRON used CalEEModTm default values for off-road equipment and vehicle emission factors, off-road equipment load factors and vehicle trip lengths. The parameters used in CaIEEModTM are presented in Tables 2 -4. The analysis assumes that off-road construction equipment would operate from 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 5 days a week, except for two construction phases during which the Mill will be shut down and the off-road construction equipment would operate 12 hours per day and 6 days a week. CaIEEModT"" provides estimates for daily and total construction-related criteria pollutant emissions, including reactive organic gases(ROGs)3, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM,o), particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) and GHG emissions. PM emissions are composed of exhaust . SCAQMD.2013.California Emissions Estimator Modell"'.Available at:http://www.caleemod.com/.Accessed: November,2013. z The USEPA maintains a compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors and process information for several air pollution source categories.The data is based on source test data, material balance studies,and engineering estimates.Available at:http://epa.gov/ttnchiel/ap42/,Accessed:April 2014. 3 ROG as defined by CalEEMod is assumed to be equal to VOC as defined by SCAQMD. • Appendix A 4 ENVIRON Item C-56 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California emissions and fugitive emissions. Exhaust emissions are generated by fuel combustion in on- road vehicles and/or off-road equipment. Fugitive emissionsinclude tire wear, brake wear, entrained road dust and dust suspended by wind and construction related activities. In Tables 5 and 6, ENVIRON summarized the maximum daily emissions in pounds per day for criteria pollutants and the total GHG in metric tonnage per year associated with construction of the proposed baghouse. Appendix A 5 ENVIRON Item C-57 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California 3 Operational Emissions • 3.1 Criteria Air Pollutants To evaluate the potential air quality impacts due to the Revised Project compared to the previously adopted 2009 MND Project, ENVIRON calculated the 30-day average emissions for both the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects. Given that the current Title V permit lists a scrap throughput limit on a 30-day average period, the City has agreed that the analysis should be on 30-day average basis, consistent with the current Title V scrap throughput permit limit.' CalEEModTM was used for operational off-road equipment emission estimates; however, the model does not allow for estimation of emissions for specialized equipment types specific to Gerdau. Other methods referenced below in the applicable sections were used to estimate the emissions for this analysis. 3.1.1 Electric Arc Furnace Emissions from the EAF and baghouse are primarily generated from the auxiliary burners, high" temperature reactions from carbonate flux and carbon electrodes consumptions, and fugitive dust. These emissions are primarily generated from the gas-fired auxiliary burners and high temperature reactions of the scrap in the EAF. This analysis assumes that PM,o is equal to total PM for emission estimation. The 2009 MND Project involved increasing the monthly feed rate to 100,000 tons per month, roughly equivalent to 90,000 tons of steel production per month. The Revised Project will increase the monthly feed rate to 80,000 tons per month, roughly equivalent to 72,000 tons of steel production per month. The EAF operating conditions for the 2009 MND and the Revised • Projects are summarized in Table 7. PM emissions were calculated using the methodology from the 2014 SCAQMD permit application and were based on the new baghouse manufacturer's emission guarantee for filterable emissions and the source test results for condensable emissions. The baghouse manufacturer guarantees an outlet filterable PM10 concentration of 0.0012 gr/dscf. The condensable PM,o emissions at the existing baghouse inlet(EAF outlet)were measured to be 0.0006 gr/acf.5 The hourly controlled emissions were calculated in the permit application to be 16.28 lbs/hours and 3.34 lbs/hour during normal operation at 1,200,000 acfm and during downtime at 400,000 acfm, respectively. The PM emissions are summarized in Table 8. EAF emission factors of other criteria pollutants, shown in Table 9, come from the 2014 SCAQMD permit application. Controlled emission factors for NOx and SOx were calculated based on emission test results and production rates from the 2012 source tests.6 Controlled emission factors for VOC and CO were.calculated based on the emission results and production 4 July 23,2014 meeting between Gerdau and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Manager,Candyce Burnett. 5 Delta Air Quality Services.Emissions tests conducted between 09/11/2013 and 09/13/2013. 6 SCAQMD.Source Test Report 12-303.Conducted between 06/26/2012 and 06/29/2012. • Appendix A 6 ENVIRON Item C-58 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project. Gerdau Steel Minimill, Rancho Cucamonga,California rates from the 2007 source test report.'A 50% control efficiency was assumed for CO and VOC emissions to be consistent with the SCAQMD's Permit Evaluation (A/N 472953) on June 4, 2008.8 The uncontrolled emission factors were then calculated from the controlled emission factors divided by the associated control efficiencies. The emissions from the existing and new burners were calculated in the 2014 SCAQMD permit application and were based on the default natural gas high heating value of 1,050 Btu/scf, burner ratings and emission factors for natural gas-fired external combustion equipment from the SCAQMD's Annual Emission Report(AER)guidance as presented in Table 9.9 ENVIRON calculated the 30-day average daily emissions for both the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects shown in Table 10 based on the emission factors discussed above multiplied by the monthly throughput and then divided by 30 days per month. 3.1.2 Other Stationary Sources In addition to the EAF/baghouse emissions, ENVIRON calculated the 30-day average criteria pollutant emissions for other stationary sources affected by a change in scrap throughput based on the emission factors in.Table 11 and the 30-day average throughput data for cooling towers and other stationary sources in Tables 12 and 13, respectively. The emission factors of NOx, SOx, CO, PM, and VOC for the combustion sources used in this analysis are consistent with those used in the 2013 AER except for the NOx emission factor of the Billet Reheat Furnace, which is based on the Continuous Emission Monitor System (CEMS) Re-Certification performed on March 13-20, 2014(Table 14). To estimate PM,o and PM2.5 emissions for these sources, it is assumed that PM,o is equal to the total PM, and PM2.5 fraction of PM,o summarized in Table 15 is applied to calculate PM2.s emission factor.The PM10 and PM2.s emission factors related to the material handling processes such as silo storage, and conveyor transfer points are based on the EPA AP-42 emission factors10. The VOC emission factors from the fuel storage and dispensing facility are based on the SCAQMD default emission factors. ENVIRON obtained the maximum monthly throughout data from the supporting calculations prepared for the 2013 AER where available. For the fuel storage tanks, the cooling towers, and the Mi-Jack, ENVIRON estimated the maximum monthly throughput using the 2013 annual throughput multiplied by the highest monthly steel production rate percentage in 2013 shown in Table 16. In order to calculate the maximum 30-day average throughput for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects, ENVIRON scaled up the peak monthly throughput in 2013'using the scaling factors derived based on the ratio of the proposed throughput to the 2013 actual throughput for each Project and then divided by 30 days per month.The scaling factors applied Ambient Air Services, Inc.Conducted on 09/21/2007. e SCAQMD Engineering&Compliance Application Processing and Calculations.AN 472953&et al.June 4,2008. 9 SCAQMD AER.http://www.aqmd.gov/aer/aer.html.Accessed 10/08/2013. 10 AP-42 Section 11.12 Concrete Batching,Table 11.12-2.Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchiel/ap42/chl 1/final/cl1s12.pdf.Accessed August,2014 Appendix A 7 ENVIRON Item C-59 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California are summarized in Table 17. Where the scaled throughput becomes larger than the design capacity or throughput limits in Gerdau's current Title V permit, the throughput is capped at the current limit because Gerdau is not planning to increase capacity on these other sources at this time. Detailed calculations of the criteria pollutant emissions for each source were shown in Table 18. 3.1.3 Off--Road Equipment ENVIRON calculated the 30-day average criteria pollutant emissions for the various off-road equipment types present at Gerdau based on the default off-road emission factors from the CalEEMod (Table 19) multiplied by the fuel consumption." As shown in Table 20, the maximum 30-day average fuel usage for off-road equipment in 2013 was estimated using 2013 annual fuel usage data provided by Gerdau and the highest monthly steel production rate in 2013 present in Table 16. The maximum 30-day average in 2013 was scaled up using the ratio of the future monthly production rate and maximum monthly 2013 production rate(Table 17)to estimate the fuel usages for the 2009 MND and Revised Projects. Detailed emission calculations are shown in Table 21. 3.1.4 Scrap Trucks Scrap trucks deliver scrap to the Mill from various offsite locations. As shown in Tables 22 and 23, ENVIRON calculated the off-site and on-site scrap truck exhaust emissions of the criteria pollutants using the emission factors in grams per miles from the EMFAC2011 multiplied by the vehicle mile traveled (VMT).12 The emission factors summarized in Table 24 were obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) EMFAC2011 based on the emission factors for heavy-heavy duty diesel trucks in the South Coast for 2016 calendar year operation. In 2013, ® 90% of the scrap metal was delivered from sites within 75 miles, 6%from sites within 75 to 125 miles, and 3%from sites beyond 125 miles from Gerdau (Table 25). Information on detailed scrap truck count for each departure city was not available, so the VMT is estimated based on the average distance between the Mill and the sites in each category. The peak month VMT in 2013 was calculated based on the 2013 VMT multiplied by % of the highest monthly number of scrap trucks(Table 26), and used to estimate the maximum 30-day average VMT in 2013. The 2013 30-day average was scaled up using the ratio of the future monthly production rate to the maximum monthly 2013 production rate (Table 17)to estimate the VMT for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects. For criteria pollutants,the off-site emissions were analyzed for the total roundtrip VMT in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The 30-day average number of trucks estimated for the off-site emissions was used to estimate the on-site emissions from scrap trucks. Total roundtrip emissions were estimated based on a 1 Obtained from the default data tables in the CalEEMod User's Guide for 2016 calendar year operation.CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix D Default Data Tables.Available at http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixd.pdf?sfvrsn=2.Accessed in August 2014. 12 EMFAC2011 web based data access is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm#emfac2011_web—based_data.Accessed in August 2014. ® Appendix A g ENVIRON Item C-60 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California one-way distance between the gate and the scrap yard is 0.43 miles measured using Goggle Earth@. 3.1.5 Product Delivery Trucks Product delivery trucks deliver steel products to various customers in the U.S. Similar to the emission estimates for the scrap trucks, ENVIRON calculated the off-site and on-site product delivery truck exhaust emissions for the criteria pollutants summarized in Tables 27 and 28 using the vehicle emission factors from the EMFAC201173(Table 24)and the VMT. In Table 29, ENVIRON calculated.30-day average number of trucks based on the peak monthly number of trucks and VMT for 2013 using the total number of delivery trucks in 2013 multiplied by the percentage of the maximum monthly steel production rate during 2013. The maximum 30-day averages in 2013 were scaled up using the ratio of the future monthly and maximum monthly 2013 production rates to estimate the truck trips and VMT(Table 17)for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects. Product delivery destination cities were provided by Gerdau, and distances were obtained based on the default driving route obtained from Google Maps. For criteria pollutants, the off-site emissions were analyzed for the total roundtrip VMT in the SCAB. The 30-day average number of trucks estimated for the off-site emissions was used to estimate the on-site emissions from product delivery trucks.Total roundtrip emissions were estimated based on a one-way distance between the rebar yard and the gate is 0.32 miles measured using Goggle Earth@. 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ENVIRON estimated the operational emissions of the total GHG (carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e), including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20)for each of the following sources discussed in the sections below. Annual GHG emissions were calculated based on the GHG emission factors and monthly feedrate. 3.2.1 Electric Arc Furnace GHG emissions associated with the EAF summarized in Table 30 come from the burners' natural gas combustion. GHG emissions for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects were calculated based on the natural gas consumption from the four existing burners and the new oxy-fuel burners(Table 7), respectively, multiplied by GHG emission factors from the CARB Greenhouse Gas Inventory.14 3.2.2 Other Stationary Sources For other stationary sources, GHG emissions summarized in Table 31 come from combustion sources, including Ladle Heaters, Billet Reheat Furnace, Mi-Jack,Rule 219 exempt natural gas, diesel, and gasoline equipment. GHG emissions were calculated based on the fuel (e.g. diesel, 13 lbid 14 Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using fuel based emission factors for industrial manufacturing section obtained from California's Greenhouse Gas Inventory,Section Wrn(Year 2012).Available at hftp://www.arb.ca.gov/cclinventory/doc/doc-index-php.Accessed August,2014. Appendix A 9 ENVIRON Item C-61 Melt Shop Evacuation.and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill, Rancho Cucamonga,California natural gas, gasoline)consumption (Table 13) multiplied by GHG emission factors from the CARB Greenhouse Gas Inventory.15 3.2.3 Off-Road Equipment GHG emissions summarized in Table 32 come from various off-road equipment types present at Gerdau. GHG emissions were calculated based on the diesel consumption multiplied by GHG off-road equipment emission factors from the CARE Greenhouse Gas Inventory.76 The 30-day average diesel fuel usages for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects were estimated as described in Section 3.1. 3.2.4 Scrap Trucks As shown in Tables 22 and 23, ENVIRON calculated the off-site and on-site GHG emissions from the scrap trucks based on the 2016 calendar year emission factors from EMFAC2011 11 multiplied by the VMT. The CO2 emission factors(includes Pavley and Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS])were obtained directly from the EMFAC2011 model output while the N20 and CH4 emission factors were calculated based on the guidance provided on the EMFAC2011 website78 (See Table 24 for details). The 30-day average VMT for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects were estimated as described in Section 3.1.4. For GHG, the off-site emissions were analyzed for the total roundtrip VMT within California. Total roundtrip emissions were estimated based on a one-way distance between the gate and the scrap yard is 0.43 miles measured using Goggle Earth®. 3.2.5 Product Delivery Trucks ENVIRON calculated the GHG emissions associated with the product delivery trucks in Tables 27 and 28 based on the emission factors from EMFAC2011 19 multiplied by the VMT. As described under Section 3.2.4, the CO2 emission factors(includes Pavley and LCFS)were obtained directly from the EMFAC2011 model output while the N20 and CH4 emission factors were calculated based on the guidance provided on the EMFAC2011 website 20 (See Table 24 for details).The 30-day average VMT for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects were estimated as described in Section 3.1. For GHG, the off-site emissions were analyzed for the total roundtrip VMT within California. 15 Ibid i6 Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using fuel based emission factors for off-road construction and industrial equipment obtained from California's Greenhouse Gas Inventory,Section Weil(Year 2012).Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/doc_index.php.Accessed August,2014. 17 EMFAC2011 web based data access is available at hftp://www.arb-ca-gov/msei/modeling.htm#emfac20ll web based—data.Accessed in August 2014. 18 California Air Resources Board,Mobile Source Inventory—EMFAC2011 Frequently Asked Questions.Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac2Ol 1-faq.htm.Accessed August 2014. 19 EMFAC2011 web based data access is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm#emfac2011_web based data.Accessed in August 2014. 20 California Air Resources Board,Mobile Source Inventory—EMFAC2011 Frequently Asked Questions.Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac2Ol1-faq.htm.Accessed August 2014. • Appendix A 10 ENVIRON Item C-62 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill,Rancho Cucamonga,California The 30-day average numbers of trucks for the 2009 MND and Revised Projects were estimated as described in Section 3.1. Total roundtrip emissions were estimated based on a one-way distance between the rebar yard the gate is 0.32 miles measured using Goggle Earth®. 3.2.6 Greenhouse Emissions from Steel Production GHG process emissions from the steel production were calculated using emission factors from Gerdau's 2012 Greenhouse Gas Emission Verification Report dated August 31, 2013 multiplied by the monthly steel production throughput for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects. 3.3 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions ENVIRON estimated the operational emissions of the TACs using TAC emission factors multiplied by the throughput. Hourly and annual emissions were calculated for both the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects. 3.3.1 Electric Arc Furnace Hourly and annual TAC emissions for the EAF were calculated using the emission factors, consistent with the 2014 SCAQMD permit application, multiplied by the hourly and annual steel production rate or natural gas consumption, respectively. The organic TACs, except for dioxins, are emitted as a result of the natural gas combustion in the burners. The emission factors were based on the SCAQMD's AER Program Supplemental Instructions for Reporting Procedures for AB2588.21 A control efficiency of 50%was assumed for all TACs(except ammonia)from natural gas combustion based on the assumptions for VOC emissions made in SCAQMD's Permit Evaluation (A/N 472953)on June 4, 2008.22 The metal TACs and dioxins are emitted as a result of the steel production process. Metal TAC emissions were calculated using results from a source test conducted in September 2013.23 Dioxin emissions were calculated using an emission factor of 0.89 pg/MT of steel based on information provided by Gerdau24. ENVIRON summarized TAC emissions for the-EAF for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects in Table 33. 3.3.2 Other Stationary Sources Hourly and annual TAC emissions for other stationary sources were calculated using the emission factors(Table 34), consistent with those used in the 2013 AER, multiplied by the hourly and annual steel production rate or natural gas consumption, respectively. Average hourly data based on the maximum 30-day average is used. ENVIRON summarized TAC emissions from each stationary source for the 2009 MND and the Revised Projects in Table 35. 21 SCAQMD's Annual Emissions Reporting Program Supplemental Instructions for Reporting Procedures for AB2588 Facilities for Reporting their Quadrennial Air Toxics Emissions Inventory.January 2010.Table B-1: Default EF for Natural Gas Combustion(10-100 MMBtu/hr)for External Combustion Equipment. 22 SCAQMD Engineering&Compliance Application Processing and Calculations.A/N 472953&et al.June 4,2008. 23 Final Source test report-Date March 25,2014.Report Number-R0411374 24 24 LEHDER Environmental Services Limited. Compliance Dioxin and Furan Source Testing Program,Electric Arc Furnace Baghouse System.Conducted between 11/23/2010 and 11/25/2010 at Gerdau Ameristeel in Cambridge Ontario,Canada Appendix A 11 ENVIRON Item C-63 Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project Gerdau Steel Minimill, Rancho Cucamonga,California 3.3.3 Off-Road Equipment, Scrap Truck, and Product Delivery Truck • Diesel exhaust emissions, characterized as diesel particulate matter(DPM), is the only TAC emissions from the off-road equipment, scarp trucks and production delivery trucks quantified in this analysis. It is conservatively assumed that all the exhaust PM,o emissions are DPM. Emission calculations for PM,o have been discussed above in Sections 3.1.3-.3.1.5. ® Appendix A 12 ENVIRON Item C-64 Table 1. Construction Phases and Duration TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia Number of Construction Phase Name Phase Type Days per 2 Week' Duration Bid 1 Site Preparation Site Pre aration 5 10 Bid 1 -Grading Grading 5 82 Bid 2-Outlet Duct Support Building Construction 5 5 Bid 2-Stack/Dust Collection Building Building Construction 5 15 Bid 2-Erect Ba house. Buildina Construction 5 15 Bid 2-Welding BH Modules Building Construction 5 30 Bid 2-Install Duct/Cages/Bags Building Construction 5 70 Demo Building Expansion Site Preparation 6 17 Building Expansion Grading lGrading5 18 ,Building Expansion IBuilding Construction 6 1 32 Notes: 'Provided by.TAMCO. It is assumed that off-road construction equipment would operate from 6:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m., 5 days a week,except for two construction phases during which the mill will be shut down and the off-road construction equipment would operation 12 hours per day and 6.days a week. 2Based on the construction schedule provided by TAMCO. Page 1 of 1 lkj ENVIRON Item C-65 Table 2. Construction Equipment Lost TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Phase Name Off-Road Equipment Unit Usage Horse Load Type Amount' Hours' PowerZ Factor2 Bid 1 -Site Preparation Excavators 6 10.5 150 0.38 Bid 1 -Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.5 25 0.37 Bid 1 -Grading Excavators 6 10.5 150 0.38 Bid 1 -Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.5 25 0.37 Bid 2 -Outlet Duct Support Aerial Lifts 3 10.5 25 0.31 Bid 2 -Outlet Duct Support Aerial Lifts 2 10.5 60 0.31 Bid 2-Outlet Duct Support Air Compressors 1 10.5 100 0.48 Bid 2 -Outlet Duct Support Cranes 1 10.5 250 0.29 Bid 2-Outlet Duct Support Forklifts 2 10.5 125 0.2 Bid 2 -Stack/Dust Collection Buildina Aerial Lifts 3 10.5 25 0.31 Bid 2-Stack/Dust Collection Building Aerial Lifts 2 10.5 60 0.31 Bid 2-Stack/Dust Collection Building Air Compressors 1 10.5 100 0.48 Bid 2 -Stack/Dust Collection Building Cranes 1 10.5 250 0.29 Bid 2-Stack/Dust Collection Building Forklifts 2 10.5 125 0.2 Bid 2 -Erect Ba house Aerial Lifts 3 10.5 25 0.31 Bid 2 -Erect Ba house Aerial Lifts 2 10.5 60 0.31 Bid 2-Erect Ba house Air Compressors 1 10.5 100 0.48 Bid 2 -Erect Ba house Cranes 1 10.5 250 0.29 Bid 2-Erect Ba house Forklifts 2 10.5 125 0.2 Bid 2-Welding BH Modules Welders .8 10.5 5 0.45 Bid 2- Install Duct/Cages/Bags Aerial Lifts 3 10.5 25 0.31 • Bid 2 -Install Duct/Cages/Bags Aerial Lifts 2 10.5 60 0.31 Bid 2-Install Duct/Cages/Bags Air Compressors 1 10.5 100 0.48 Bid 2-Install Duct/Cages/Bags Cranes 1 10.5 250 0.29 Bid 2- Install Duct/Cages/Bags Forklifts 2 10.5 125 0.2 Demo Building Expansion Excavators 6 12 150 0.38 Demo Building Expansion Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 12 25 0.37 Building Expansion Grading Excavators 6 10.5 150 0.38 Building Expansion Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.5 25 0.37 Building Expansion Aerial Lifts 3 12. 25 0.31 Building Expansion Aerial Lifts 2 12 60 0.31 Building Expansion Aerial Lifts 2 12 125 0.31 Building Expansion Air Compressors 1 12 100 0.48 Building Expansion Cranes 1 12 250 0.29 Building Expansion Cranes 2 12 350 0.29 Building Expansion Forklifts 2 12 125 0.2 Building Expansion Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 12 25 0.37 -Building Expansion Welders 8 12 5 0.45 Notes: 'Provided by TAMCO 2CalEEMod defaults • Page 1 of 1 ENVIRON Item C-66 Table 3. CaIEEMod Default Input Parameters for Estimating Emissions from Traffic TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Parameters' Value Unit Worker Trip Length 14.7 miles Vendor Trip Length 6.9 miles Hauling Trip Length 20 miles Worker Vehicle Class Light Duty Mix - Vendor Vehicle Class Heavy Duty Mix - Hauling Vehicle Class Heavy Heavy Duty.Truck - Worker Percent Pave 100 % Vendor Percent Pave 100 % Hauling Percent Pave 100 % Road Silt Loading 0.1 g/m2 Material Silt Content 8.5 % - Matenal Moisture Content 0.5 % Average Vehicle Weight 2.4 tons Mean Vehicle Speed 40 mph Notes: 'Trip length,paved road conditions,and speed assumptions are based on CaIEEMod default Page 1 of 1 E N VI RO N Item C-67 Table 4. CaIEEMod Default Input Parameters for Dust from Material Movement TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California ® Parameters Value Unit Material Imported' 12,600 'Cubic Yards Material Exported' 17,300 Cubic Yards Mean Vehicle Speed 7.1 mile/hour Material Moisture Content Bulldozing2 7.9 Material Moisture Content Truck Loading2 12 Material Silt Content2 6.9 Notes: 'Provided by TAMCO 2CalEEMod default values • • Page 1 of 1 1,o ENVIRON Item C-68. Table 5. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Construction TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Phase Phase Type Year Location Source VOC' NO= CO 50,' Total Total Maximum Dai Emissiotme Ib1da Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-site Off-Road 3.32 36.61 26.32 0.04 1.85 1.70 Total 3.32 36.61 26.32 0.04 1.85 1.70 Bid 1-Site Preparation siteTotal Hauling 1.95 14.30 10.22 0.03 1.00 0.43 Preparation Vendor 0.02 0.10 0..12 0.00 0.01 0.00 Offsite Worker 0.73 0.19 2.30 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 2.70 14.59 1 12.31 0.04 1.35 0.52 Fu hive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 On-site Off-Road 3.32 36.61 26.32 0.04 1.85 1.70 Total 3.32 36.61 26.32 0.04 1.89 1.71 Bid 1-Grading Grading 2015 Hauling 1.95 14.30 1022 0.03 1.00 0.43 Off-site Vendor 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 Worker 0.73 0.19 2.30 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 2.70 14.59 12.31 0.04 1.35 0.52 On-site Off-Road 2.94 30.46 17.30 0.03 1.66 1.57 Total 2.94 30.46 17.30 0.03 1.66 1.57 2015 Bid 2-Outlet Duct Support Building Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Vendor 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.00 .0.01 0.00 Off-site Worker 1 0.73 0.19 2.30 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 1 0.75 0.29 2.41 0.00 0.35 0.09 Onsite Off-Road 2.94 30.46 17.30 0.03 1.66 1.57 Total 2.94 30.46 17.30 0.03 1.66 1.57 Bid 2-Stack/Dust Collection Building 2015 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Construction Offsite Vendor 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 Worker 0.73 0.19. 2.30 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 0.75 029 2.41 0.00 0.35 0.09 Onsite Off-Road 2.94 30.46 1 17.30 0.03 1.66 1.57 Total 2.94 30.46 17.30 0.03 1.66 1.57 Bid 2-Erect Baghouse Building 2015 Haulin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Offs .Vendor 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.00. 0.01 0.00 Worker 0.73 0.19 2.30 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 0.75 0.29 2.41 0.00 0.35 0.09 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bid 2-Welding BH Modules Building 2015 Offsite Vendor 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 Construction Worker 0.73 0.19 2.30 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 0.75 029 2.41 0.00 0.35 0.09 Onsite Off-Road 2.94 30.46 17.30 0.03 1.66 1.57 Total 2.94 30.46 17.30 0.03 1.66 1.57 2015 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite Vendor 0.02 1 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 Worker 0.73 0.19 2.30 0.00 0.34 0.09 Bid 2-Install Duct/Cages/Bags Building Total 0.75 029 2.41 0.00 0.35 0.09 Construction Onsite Off-Road 2.75 28.60 17.06 0.03 1.51 1.43 Total, 2.75 28.60 17.06 0.03 1.51 1.43 2016 Hauling0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite Vendor 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 Worker 0.67 0.17 2.07 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 0.69 0.26 2.17 0.00 0.35 0.09 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-site Off-Road 3.54 38.20 29.98 0.05 1.93 1.77 Total 3.54 38.20 29.98 0.05 1.93 1.77 Demo Building Expansion siteTotal Hauling1.62 12.61 9.55 0.03 0.96 0.38 Preparation Vendor 0.08 0.45 0.57 0.00 0.04 0.02 Offsite Worker 1.34 0.34 4.13 0.01 0.68 0.18 Total 3.05 13.40 13.66 0.04 1.67 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Onsite Off-Road 3.10 33.42 26.23 0.04 1.69 Total 3.10 33.42 26.23 0.04 1.72 Building Expansion Grading Grading 2016 Hauling1.62 12.61 9.55 0.03 0.96 Offsite Vendor 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.01 Worker 0.67 0.17 2.07 0.00 0.34 Total 2.31 12.87 11.44 0.04 1.3011 Page1of2 1,0 ENVIRON Item C-69 . Table 5. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Construction TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California • 1 Phase Phase Type Year Location Source VOC NO. CO SO, I PMw PMasTotal Total Maximum Daily EmisslonsZ Ib/da On-site Off-Road 5.83 64.30 41.49 0.06 3.09 2.89 Total 5.83 64.30 41.49 0.06 3.09 2.89 Building Hauling0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Expansion Construldon 2016 Vendor 0.08 0.45 0.57 0.00 0.04 0.02 Off-site Worker 1.34 0.34 4.13 0.01 0.68 0.18 Total 1.42 0.78 1 4.63 0.01 0.71 0.20 2015 10.45 82.23 60.17 0.11 5.59 3.99 Overall N/A 2016 N/A NIA 7.25 65.08 46.12 0.09 3.81 3.09 Total 17.70 147.31 106.29 0.20 9.40 7.08 Maximum Dail Emission 10.45 82.23 60.17 0.11 5.59 3.99 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No Notes: 'For this analysis,ROG is assumed to be equal to VOC and SQ assumed to be equal to SOS. 2 The maximum daily emissions are the highest daily emissions from any construction phase. 3 The SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for construction were obtained from:http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-sourcelcega/handbook/scagmd-air-quatity-signrflcance- th resholds.pdf7sfvrsn=2. Abbreviations CEQA-Califomia Environmental Quality Act CO-carbon monoxide Ib-pound N/A-not applicable NO,-nitrogen oxides . ROG-reactive organic gases PM10-particles less than 10 microns in diameter PM2,5-particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter SCAOMD-South Coast Air Quality Management District Sz-sulfur dioxide So,-sulfur oxides VOC-volatile organic compounds • Page 2 of 2 1,s ENVIRON Item C-70 Table 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Phase Phase Type Year Location Source CO29 MT Fugitive Dust 0 On-site Off-Road 19 Total 19 .Bid 1 -Site Preparation Site Preparation 2015 Hauling 15 Off-site Vendor 0 Worker 2 Total 17 Fugitive Dust 0 On-site Off:Road 156 Total 156 Bid 1 -Grading Grading 2015 Hauling 122 Off-site Vendor 1 Worker 13 Total 136 On-site Off-Road 6 Total 6 Bid 2-Outlet Duct Support Building Construction 2015 Haulin 0 Off-site Vendor 0.05 Worker 1 Total 1 On-site Off-Road 19 Total 19 Bid 2-StaddDust Collection Building Building Construction 2015 Hauling 0 Off-site Vendor 0.1 Worker 2 Total 2 On-site Off-Road 19 Total 19 Bid 2-Erect Baghouse Building Construction 2015 Haulin . Vendor 0.1 Off-site Worker 2 Total 2 Hauling 0 Bid 2-Welding BH Modules Building Construction 2015 Off-site Vendor 0.3 Worker 5 Total 5 On-site Off-Road 89 Total 89 2015 Hauling 0 Off-site Vendor 1 Worker 11 Bid 2-Install DucttCages/Bags Building Construction Total 11 On-site Off-Road 1 . Total 1 2016 Hauling 0 Off-site Vendor 0.01 Worker 0 Total 0.2 Fugitive Dust 0 On-site Off-Road 37 Total 37 Demo Building Expansion Site Preparation 2016 Hauling 25 Off-site Vendor 1 Worker 5 Total 31 Page 1 of 2 � ENVIRON Item C-71 Table 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia • Phase Phase Type Year Location Source COZe (MT/yr) Fugitive Dust 0 On-site Off-Road 34 Total 34 Building Expansion Grading Grading 2016 Hauling 27 Off-site Vendor 0 Worker 3 Total 29 On-site Off-Road 89 Total 89 Building Expansion Building Construction 2016 Hauling 0 Off-site Vendor 2 Worker 9 Total 11 2015 483 Overall N/A 2016 N/A N/A 232 Total 715 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 10,000 Significant? No Notes: 'The SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for construction was obtained from:http:Nwww.agmd.gov/docsidefault-source/cega/handbook/scagmd• air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Abbreviations: CEQA-Cal fomia Environmental Quality Act ® CO2e-carbon dioxide equivalents MT-metric tonne N/A-not applicable SCAQMD-South Coast Air Quality Management District yr-year Page 2 of 2 it,# ENVIRON Item C-72 Table 7. Operating Conditions for the Electric Arc Furnace TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Throughput Parameters Units 2009 MND Project FRevised ProJect Feed Rate Monthly Feed Rate tons/month 100,000 80,000 Steel Production Hourly Production' tons/hour 130 130 Monthly Production tons/month 90,000 72,000 Annual Production tons/ ear 1,080,000 864,000 Hours of Operation Monthly Operation 3 hours/month 692 554 Operating hours in a day for 30DA %of total hours 96% 77% Annual Operation hours/year 8,308 6,646 Burner Specifications Btu/hour 15;600,000 15,750,000 Burner Rating4 5 MMBtu/hour 15.60 15.75 Number.of Burners — 4 4 scf/min 247.6 250.0 Gas Volume 4 scf/hr 14,857 15,000 scf/ ear 123,428,571 99,692,308 Notes: ' Hourly production rates were based on information provided by the Mill. 2 Monthly production rates were calculated based on the monthly feed rate.It is assumed that 90%of the scrap feed will be converted to product. 3 Estimated by dividing the monthly/annual production rates by the hourly production rate. °Rating for new bumer(Revised Project)was based on manufacturers specification.Each burner has maximum flue flow rate of 250 scfm.On average,the burners will be operated by 300 sd/ton produced steel,or 131.25 scfm per bumer. 5 Rating for existing burner based on the facility's Title V permit(Facility ID:018931)dated January 28,2014. Abbreviations: 30DA-30-day average Btu-British thermal unit HHV-higher heating value hr-hour min-minute MMBtu-million British thermal units scf-standard cubic feet Constants and.Conversion Factors: Year to month - 12 monthstyear Maximum number of hours in 30 days 720 hours/30 days Million Btu to Btu 1,000,000 Btu/MMBtu HHV Natural Gas 1,050 Btu/scf Page 1of 1 ENVIRON Item C-73 Table 8. Particulate Matter Emission Factors TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California • Emission Parameters' Units During EAF During EAF Operation Down Time Outlet Baghouse Filterable PM10 r/dscf 0.0012 0.0012 gr/acf 0.0010 0.0010 Inlet Baghouse Condensable PM10 gr/acf 0.0006 -- Outlet Baghouse Total PM10 gr/acf 0.0016 0.0010 Proposed Baghouse Flow Rate acfm 1,200,000 400,000 Outlet Emission Guarantee lbs/hr 16.28 3.34 Notes: 'Data obtained from the 2014 SCAQMD permit application for the proposed baghouse. Abbreviations: acf-actual cubic feet acfm-actual cubic feet per minute dscf-dry standard cubic feet EAF-electric arc furnace gr-grain hr-hour lbs-pounds PM,a-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns SCAQMD-South Coast Air Quality Management District Conversion Factors: 7,000 gr/Ib • 60 min/hr • Page iof 1ENVIRON Item C-74 Table 9. Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for the EAF Baghouse and Burner TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California EAF Baghouse Stack Natural Gas Pollutant Emission Factors' Combution in the EAF (lbs/ton steel Burner' produced) flbs/MMsc ... NOx 0.144 130 CO 0.343 17.5 . VOC 0.066 a3.5 Sox 0.189 1 z PM10 — — Notes: 'NO,,CO,VOC,and SOx emission factors were obtained from the 2014 SCAQMD permit application for the proposed baghouse. ZSee Table 8 for outlet PM10 emissions. Abbreviations: CO-carbon monoxide EAF-electric arc furnace lbs-pounds MMscf-million standard cubic feet NOx-nitrogen oxides PMt0-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns SCAQMD-South Coast Air Quality Management District SOx-sulfur oxides VOC-volatile organic compounds Page 1of 1 t4 ENVIRON Item C-75 Table 10. 30-Day Average Emissions from the EAF Baghouse and Burner TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia Pollutant 2009 MND Project' Revised Pro'ece Units NOx3 431 337 lbs/day CO3 1,030 823 Ibs/day VOC3 198 158 lbs/day SOx3 566 453 lbs/day PM;04 379 304 lbs/day Notes: 2009 MND project emissions are emissions from 100,000 tons/month throughput through the EAF. Z Revised project emissions include emissions from 80,000 tons/month throughput through the EAF and the emissions difference due to replacing the four existing burners with the new burners. 3 30-day average emissions were estimated by multiplying the emission factor by the monthly production rate and dividing by 30 days/month. 430-day average PM emissions were calculated based on the maximum baghouse operation of 1,200,000 adrn for the percentage of the day during the time that the EAF is in operation,400,000 adrn for an hour during the cool down period after the EAF is shutdown,and zero flow for the rest of the time that the EAF is off for the day. Abbreviations: CO-carbon monoxide EAF-electric arc furnace lbs-pounds • NOx-nitrogen oxides PM,0-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns SOx-sulfur oxides VOC-volatile organic compounds Conversion Factors: 30 days/month 24 hours/day 1,000,000 scf/MMscf Page lof 1 qij ENVIRON Item C-76 Table 11. Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Factors Emission Source Unit NO, sox CO PM7e PM ' VOC Vertical Ladle Heaterz•' Ib/MMscf 76.56 0.6 35 7.5 7.3 7.0 South Ladle Heater23 Ib/MMscf 76.56 0.6 35 7.5 7.3 7.0 North Ladle NeatenA Ib/MMscf 76.56 0.6 35 7.5 7.3 7.0 Billet Reheat Furnace 3.4 Ib/MMscf 137.83 0.6 35 7.5 7.3 7.0 Storage Silo,Quicklimes Ib/tons - - - 3.40E-04 1.02E-04 Hopper,Quicklime° Ib/tons - - - 4.95E-05 1.49E-05 - Screw Conveyor,Quicklimee 7 Ib/tons - - - 1.04E-03 3.12E-04 Storage Silo,Dolomite Lime° Ib/tons - - - 1.52E-03 4.56E-04 Storage Silo,Carbon Unloadin s Ib/tons - - - 3.40E-04 1.02E-04 - Storage Silo,Carbon Pre4rijections Ib/tons - - 3.40E-04 1.02E-04 - Conveyor 1,Screw,Carbone Ib/tons - - - 4.95E-05 1.49E-05 - Conveyor 2,Screw,Carbona Ib/tons - - - 4.95E-05 1.49E-05 - In'ector 1,Carbone Ibfton - - - 4.95E-05 1.49E-05 - In'ector 2,Carbone Ibfton - - - 4.95E-05 1.49E-05 - Gasoline Storage Tank Ib/Mgal - - - - - 0.74 Gasoline Dispensing Noz7zle2 Ib/Mgal - - - - - 0.70 R219 Cooling Towers,Non-Contact27 Ib/MMgal - - - 2.9325 1.8 - Mi-jack"' Ib/Mgal 469 0.21 1 102 33.5 32.7 37.5 Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment2,3 Ib/MMscf 130 0.6 35 1 7.5 7.3 7.0 Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline E ui ment2•' Ib/Mgal 102 4.24 3940 6.5 6.5 206 Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equipment 2,3 Ib/Mgal 469 4.99 102 33.5 32.7 37.5 Diesel Storage Tank Ib/Mgal - - - - - 0.028 Notes 'PM2.5 emission factors are estimated using the PM2.5 fraction of PM10 from Table 15. 2Emission factors are obtained from calculation spreadsheet used to prepare the facility's 2013 Annual Emissions Report(AER).Facility ID Is 018931. 'For purposes of this analysis all PM10 is assumed to be equal to total PM. 4NOx emission factor is based on the 2014 RATA.All other emission factors are obtained from calulation spreadsheet used to prepare the facility's 2013 Annual Emissions Report(AER).Facility ID is 018931. SBased on AP-42 controlled emission factor"for cement unloading to elevated storage silo. °Based on AP-42 uncontrolled emission facto?for sand transfer and a control efficiency?of 95%for loadinglunloading/conveyor transfer point 'Screw conveyor has two transfer points,one controlled and the other uncontrolled. BThe dolomite lime system consists of a storage silo,a transfer bin,and a transfer screw conveyor(two transfer points one controlled and other uncontrolled). Emission factor for each system component is calouated as follows:(1)storage silo based on AP-42 controlled emission factor for cement unloading to elevated storage silo,(2)transfer bin based on AP-42 uncontrolled emission factoe for weight hopper loading and SCAQMD's control efficiency'for weigh hopper/surge bin,and(3)transfer screw conveyor based on AP-42 uncontrolled emission facto?for sand transfer and a control efficiencyi`of 95%for loading/unloading/conveyor transfer point. Abbreviations Constants CO-carbon.monoxide PM,B Emission Factors from AP-42 Table 11.12-2' Ib-pound Cement unloading to elevated 0.00034 Ibfton Mgal-thousands of gallons storage silo(controlled) MMscf-million standard cubic feet Sand transfer(uncontrolled) 0.00099 Ibfton NOx-nitrogen oxides Weigh hopper loading(uncontrolled) 0.0026 Ibfton PM,0-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns Control Efficiency for loading/unloading/ PM2,s-particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns converyor transfer point and weigh 95°x6 S%-sulfur oxides hoppedsurge birth VOC-volatile organic compounds Source: 'AP-42 Section 11.12 Concrete Batching,Table 11.12-2.Available at http:ltwww.epa.gov/ttnchiel/ap42/chll/finaUcllsl2.pdf.Accessed August.2014 °SCAQMD,Paticulate Matter Emission Factors for Processes/Equipment at Asphalt,Cement,Concrete,and Aggregate Product Plants,July 2010.Available at http:/hvww.agmd.gov/docs/defauf-source/planning/annual-emission-reportinglpadicuiate-matter-emission-factors-for-processes-equipmentat-isphaft-cement- concreteand-aggragate-product-plants.pdf?sfvrsn=4.Accessed August,2014. Page 1 of 1 1,0 ENVIRON Item C-77 Table 12. Cooling Tower System Parameters TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California 2013 Operating Circulating Water Rate Cooling Tower t,z 2013 Maximum3' Maximum Daily Hours MMgal/year al/min al/min MM al/da Cooling Tower#1 5,520 8,400 10,220 3,384.86 14.7168 Cooling Tower#2 5,520 2,700 3,285 1,087.99 4.7304 Cooling Tower#3 5,520 2,000 2,400 794.88 3.456 Cooling Tower#4 5,520 6,000 7,300 2,417.76 10.512 Cooling Tower#5 7,896 1,650 2,008 951.07 2.8908 Cooling Tower#6-__ 7,896 3,000 3,700 1,752.91 5.328 Total 10,389.48 41.634 Notes: 'Cooling towers#1,#2,#3,and#4 based on EAF operating days from CEMS. 2Cooling towers#5 and#6 based on BRF operating days from CEMS. 3The maximum circulating water rate specified by the facility Title V permit is 2,400 gal/min for Cooling Tower#3 and 3,700 for Cooling 3 Tower#4. ('1 I 4The maximum circulating water rate for Cooling Towers#1,2,4,and 5 are calculated using the average of the 2013:maximum circulating 000 water rates for Cooling Towers#3 and 6. Abbreviations: BRF-billet reheat furnace J CEMS-continuous emissions monitioring system EAF-electric arc furnace gal-gallons min-minutes MMgal-million gallons Conversion Factors: 24 hours/day 60 minutes/hour Page sof 1 it! ENVIRON Table 13.Stationary.Emission Sources and Throughputs TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga,California . AER Permit Maximum Dally Maximum Allowed Emission Source' Devlce ID' Device ID' Design Capacity' Throughput Based on Throughput from Design Capacity Title V Permit2 Vertical.Ladle Heater ES1 D1 11.90 MMbtu/hr 272,000 scf/da South Ladle Heater ES2 D2 16.40 MMbtu/hr 374,857 scf/day 18,000,000 scf/month North Ladle Heater ES3 D3 16.40 MMbtu/hr 374,857 scf/da Billet Reheat Furnace ES7 D7 143.50 MMbtuthr 3,280,000 scf/day 2 200,000 scf/da Storage Silo,Quicklime ES8 D8 — — 2;260 tons/month Hopper,Quicklime ES9 D71 — — 2,260 tonsimonth Screw Conveyor,Quicklime ES10 D72 — — 2,260 tonsimonth Storage Silo,.Dolomite!Lime ES12 D46 — — .2,100 tons/month Storage Silo,Carbon Unloading ES13 D74 — — 1,410 tonsimonth Storage Silo,Carbon Pre-Injection ES14 D75 — 1,410 tons/month Conveyor 1 Screw,Carbon ES15 D76 — — 1,410 tons/month Conveyor 2 Screw Carbon ES16 D77 — 1,410 tons/month Injector 1,Carbon ES17 D78 — — 705 tons/month Injector 2,Carbon ES18 D79 — — 705 tonsimonth Gasoline Storage Tank ES19 D14 — Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle E620 D15 — R219 Cooling Towers,Non-Contact E640 E42 — 41.63 MM alfda . — 3 Mi4ack ES32 D92 99.2 h — 0.45 M aVmonth r1 Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment ' ES36 — — — I Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment ES37 — t0 Rule 219 Exempt Diesel E ui menu ES38 — — — — Diesel Storage Tank ES39 — ;e lof 3 WIRON Table 13.Stationary Emission Sources and Throughputs TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California AER Permit 2013 Throu h ut' Emission Source' Device ID' Device ID' Throughput T Throughput Annual Peak Month Type Unit Throughput Throughput Vertical Ladle Heater ESI D1 Natural Gas scf 18,701,000 2,204,000 South Ladle Heater ES2 D2 Natural Gas scf 29,083,000 3,185,000 North Ladle Heater. ES3 D3 Natural Gas scf 37,820,902 4,014,667 Billet Reheat Furnace ES7 D7 Natural Gas scf 462,471,800 47,160,800 Steel Production tons 292,477 30,968 Storage Silo,Quicklime ESB D8 Quicklime tons 4,891 630 Hopper,Quicklime ES9 D71 Quicklime tons 4,891 630 Screw Conveyor,Quicklime ES10 D72 Quicklime tons 4,891 630 Storage Silo,Dolomite Lime ES12 D46 Dolomite Lime tons 3,972 813 Storage Silo,Carbon Unloading ES13 D74 Carbon tons 3,245 393 Storage Silo,Carbon Pre-Injection ES14 D75 Carbon tons 3,245 393 Conveyor 1,Screw,Carbon ES15 076 Carbon tons 3,245 393 Conveyor 2,Screw,Carbon ES16 D77 Carbon tons 3,245 393 Injector 1,Carbon ES17 D78 Carbon tons 1,623 196 Injector 2,Carbon ES18 D79 Carbon tons 1,623 196 Gasoline Storage Tank ES19 D14 Gasoline gal 3,559 377 Gasoline Dispensing NoiWe ES20 D15 Gasoline gal 3,559 377 M R219 Cooling Towers,Non-Contact ES40 E42 Circulating Water MM al 8,529 903 3 Mi-Jack ES32 D92 Diesel Mal 2.576 0.27 n Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment ES36 — Natural Gas scf 11,136,300 1,060,000 I Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment ES37 — Gasoline Mal 8.9261 1.108 tJ 1 Rule 219 Exempt Diesel E ui mento ES38 — Diesel Mgal 5.1375 0.600 Diesel Storage Tank .ES39 V — Diesel Mal 149 16 Page 2of 3 It j ENVIRON i j Table 13.Stationary Emission Sources and Throughputs TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga,California AER Permit 2009 MND Project Throu h uta Revised Pro ect Throu h ut2 Emission Source' Device ID' Device ID' Peak Month 30-Day Average Peak Month 30-Day Average (throughpuNmonth) (throughpuVday) (throughpudmonth) (throughput/day) Vertical Ladle Heater ES1 D7 4,218,780 140,626 4;218,780 140,626 South Ladle Heater ES2 D2 6,096,558 203,219 6;096,558 203,219 North Ladle Heater ES3 D3 7,684,662 256,155 7,684,662 256,155 Billet Reheat Furnace ES7 D7 66,000,000 2,200,000 66,000,000 2,200,000 100,000 3,333 80,000 2,667 Storage Silo,Quicklime ES8 D8 1,830 61 1,464 49 Hopper,Quicklime ESS 071 1,830 61 1,464 49 Screw Conveyor,Quicklime ES10 D72 1,830 61 1,464 49 Storage Sib,Dolomite Lime ES12 D46 2,100 70 1,890 63 Storage Silo,Carbon Unloading ES13 D74 1,141 38 913 30 Storage Silo,Carbon Pre-Injection ES14 D75 1,141 38 913 30 Conveyor 1,Screw,Carbon ES15 D76 1,141 38 913 30 Conveyor 2,Screw,Carbon ES16 D77 1,141 36 913 30 Injector 1,Carbon ES17 D78 571 19 456 15 Injector 2,Carbon ES18 D79 571 19 456 15 Gasoline Storage Tank ES19 D14 1,095 37- 876 29 Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle E620 D15 1,095 37. 876 29 M R219 CoolingTowers,Non-Contact ES40 E42 1,249 42 1,249 42 rD 3 Mi-Jack ES32 D92 0.45 0.02 0:45 0.02 (1 Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment ES36 = 3,080 619 102,687 2,464,495 82,150 Equipment ES37 3.2 0.107 2;6 0.086 Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline E ui -� Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equipment ES38 - 1.7 0.058 0.1 0.005 Diesel Storage Tank ES39 - 46 2 37 1 'Data obtained from calulation spreadsheet used to prepare the facility's 2013 Annual Emissions Report(AER).Facility ID is 018931. 2Data obtained from the facility's Title V Permit dated January 28,2014.Facility ID is 018931. 'Project throughputs were estimated by multiplying the 20131 throughputs by the production rate scaling factor.If these estimate were greater than the ma)dmum throughput(allowed by Title V Permit or design capacity),the Project throughput was assumed to be equal to the maximum throughput. 4The six diesel light stands account for 90%of the Rule 219 diesel equipment fuel usage,which is an assumption.provided by Gerdau. In the Revised Project,the diesel light stands will be replaced by electric or solar-powered light stands. Conversion Factors: 24 hoursiday 30 days/month 1,000,000 sct/MMscf 1,000 gaUMgal 1,050 Stu/scf;HHV of Natural Gas �e 3of 3 WIRON Table 14. NOx Emission Factor for the Billet Reheat Furnace TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Parameters Units Reference Method Avera e CEMS Average NO,Concentration' ppm 76.37 71.90 02%' % 9.06 9.00 Stack Flow Rate' kdscfm 20.99 21.54 NO,Emission Rate' Ib/hr 11.48 11.09 Heat Input2 MMBtu/hr 81.91 84.48 NO,Emission Factor Ib/MMscf 147.16 137.83 Notes: 'From the SCAQMD Rule 2012 CEMS Re-Certification performed on March 13-20,2014 at the Billet Reheat Furnace,prepared by Delta Air Quality Services,Inc. 2Calculated based on the stack flow rate. 3Calculated by dividing the emission rate by the heat input. Abbreviations: Conversion Factors: Btu-British thermal unit 1,000 dscfm/kdscfm CEMS-continuous emission monitoring system 60 min/hr dscfm-dry standard cubic feet per minute Fd-dry fuel F factor HHV-higher heating value hr-hour kdscfm-thousand dry standard cubic feet per minute ® lb-pound min-minute MMBtu-million British thermal units MMscf-million standard cubic feet NO%-nitrogen oxides 02-oxygen ppm-parts per million SCAQMD-South Coast Air Quality Management District scf-standard cubic feet Constants: Atmospheric 02 20.9% Natural gas HHV 1.,050 Btu/scf of natural gas SCAQMD Rule 2012 Table 3-D Natural gas Fd factor 8,710 dscf of exhaust/MMBtu 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A Table 19-2 Page lof 1 14 ENVIRON Item C-82 Table 15. PM2.5 Fraction of PM10 TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Emission Source CEIDARS Standard Classification Code Category Fraction of PM2.5 in PM10 Vertical Ladle Heater External Combustion-Gaseous Fuel-Petroleum and Industrial-Process Heater Only 0.979 South Ladle Heater External Combustion-Gaseous Fuel-Petroleum and Industrial Process Heater Only 0.979 North Ladle Heater External Combustion-Gaseous Fuel-Petroleum and Industrial Process Heater Only 0.979 Billet Reheat Furnace External Combustion-Gaseous Fuel-Petroleum and Industrial Process Heater Only 0.979 Storage Silo Quicklime Crushina.Screening, Blasting, Loadina And Unloading 0.3 Hopper,Quicklime Crushing,Screening, Blasting, Loadina And Unloading 0.3 Screw Conveyor,Quicklime Crushing, Screening, Blastina, Loading And Unloading 0.3 Stora a Silo Dolomite Lime Crushing, Screenina, Blastina, Loadina And Unloading 0.3 Storage Silo Carbon Unloading Crushing,Screening. Blastina, Loadin .And Unloading 0.3 Storage Silo Carbon Pre-Injection Crushina, Screening, Blasting, Loadina And Unloadina 0.3 Conveyor 1 Screw Carbon Crushing,Screening, Blasting, Loading And Unloading 0.3 Conve or 2 Screw Carbon Crushing, Screening, Blasting, Loadinn And Unloading 0.3 Injector 1 Carbon Crushing, Screening,Blasting, Loading And Unloading 0.3 Injector 2 Carbon Crushing, Screening, Blastina. Loadin And Unloadina 0.3 m Gasoline Storage Tank — -- 3 Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle -- -- I R219 Cooling Towers Non-Contact Cooling Tower 0.6 00 Mi-Jack ICE, Distillate And Diesel-Electric Generation 0.976 w Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment External Combustion-Gaseous Fuel-Petroleum and Industrial Process Heater Only 0.979 Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment ICE, Gasoline 0.998 Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equipment ICE, Distillate And Diesel-Electric Generation 0.976 Diesel Storage Tank -- -- Source SCAQMD, Final—Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter(PM)2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds,Appendix A Updated CEIDARS Table with PM2.5 Fractions,October 2006.Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/pm-2-5-significance-thresholds-and-calculation-methodology,Accessed August, 2014 Abbreviations: CEIDARS-California Emission Inventory Data and Reporting System ICE-Internal Combustion Engine PM10-paticles less than 10•microns in size PM2.5-particles less than 2.5 microns in size SCAQMD-South Coast Air Quality Management District E N' RON *,e lof 1 ' Table 16. Monthly Distribution of Steel Production in 2013 TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California ® Month Steel Prodution' % Production tons January 15,915 5% February 18,123 6% March 19,750 7% April 30,860 11% May 29,723 10% June 28,624 10% July 27,394 9% August 14,451 5% September 23,581 8% October 26,409 9% November 26,679 9% December 30,968 11% 2013 Total 292,477 100% Notes: 'Data provided by Gerdau. Page 1 o 1 ENVIRON Item C-84 Table 17. Throughputs and Scaling Factors TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia Scrap Feed Rate Steel Production Scaling (tons/month) Rate Factor2 tons/month 2013 Production 30,968 — 2009 MND Production 100,000 90,000 2.91 Revised Production 80,000 72,000 2.32 Notes: 'Based on the assumption that 90%of the scrap gets converted to steel. 2Scaling factors are calculated by dividing the future production rate by the 2013 production rate.• Page 1 o 1 (® ENVIRON Item C-85 Table 18. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California 2009 MND Project 30-Day Average Emissions Revised Project 30-Day Average Emissions Emission Source (lbslday) (lbs/day) NO. S% CO PM'e PM2,5 VOC NO. SO„ CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC Vertical Ladle Heater 10.77 0.08 4.92 1.05 1.03 0.98 10.77 0.08 4.92 1.05 1.03 0.98 South Ladle Heater 15.56 0.12 7.11 1.52 1.49 1.42 15.56 0.12 7.11 1.52 1.49 1.42 North Ladle Heater 19.61 0.15 8.97 1.92 1.88 1.79 19.61 0.15 8.97 1.92 1.88 1.79 Billet Reheat Furnace 303.22 1.32 77.00 16.50 16.15 15.40 303.22 1.32 77.00 16.50 16.15 15.40 Storage Silo,Quicklime - 0.02 1 0.01 - - -- 0.02 0.00 -- Hopper,Quicklime 0.00 0.00 - -- 0.00 0.00 Screw Conveyor,Quicklime 0.06 0.02 - -- 0.05 0.02 Storage Silo,Dolomite Lime 0.11 0.03 - - 0.10 0.03 Storage Silo,Carbon Unloading 0.01 0.00 -- 0.01 0.00 Storage Silo,Carbon Pre-Injection - 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 Conveyor 1,Screw,Carbon 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Conveyor 2,Screw,Carbon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Injector 1,Carbon - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 Injector 2,Carbon 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Gasoline Storage Tank - -- -0.03 - -- 0.02 Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle 0.03 0.02 R219 CoolingTowers Non-Contact 122.09 73.26 122.09 73.26 � Mi-Jack - - -- - -- -- -- "' 3 7.04 0.00 1.53 0.50 1 0.49 0.56 7.04 0.00 1.53 0.50 0.49 0.56 n Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment 13.35 0.06 3.59 0.77 0.75 0.72 10.68 0.05 2.88 0.62 0.60 0.58 I Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline-Equipment 10.95 0.46 422.88 0.70 0.70 22.11 8.76 0.36 338.31 0.56 0.56 17.69 Obi Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equipment 27.25 0.29 5.93 1.95 1.90 2.182.18 0.02 0.47 0.16 0.15 0.17 Diesel Storage Tank -- -- __ -_ -- 0.04 0.03 Total 407.74 2.49 1 531.93 147.23 97.72 1 45.27 377.81 2.12 441.19 145.11 95.67 1 38.68 Abbreviations: CO-carbon monoxide lbs-pounds N%-nitrogen oxides PM,o-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5-particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns SO,-sulfur oxides VOC-volatile organic compounds Conversion Factors: 1,000,000 scf/MMsd 1,000 gal/Mgal Page 1 of 1 tJ ENVIRON Table 19. 2016 Calendar Year Emission Factors for Offroad Equipment TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Equipments Default Default 2016 Emission Factors°(glbhp-hr) Type' CalEEMod OFFROAD Equip Type HP Load Factor3 V005 CO NO. SO,<s PM10 PM2.5 Loader Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 98 0.37 0.538 3.81146 5.14235 0.0049 0.3959 0.3643 Backhoe Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 98 0.37 0.538 3.81146 5.14235 0.0049 0.3959 0.3643 Bob Cat Skid Steer Loaders 65 0:37 0.2731 3.32767 3.53439: 0.0049 0.1,974 0.1816 Fork Lift Forklifts 89 0.2 0.7229 4.02311 6.22192 0.0049 0.5203 0.4786 Crane Cranes 226 0.29 0.6229 2.5822 7.38068 0.0049 0.3349 0.3081 Truck Off-Highway Trucks 400 0.38 0.3514 1.88523 4.04798 0.0049 0.1527 0.1405 Railking Other General Industrial Equipment 88 0.34 0.7155 4.04541 6.14411 0.0048 0.5178 0.4764 Pickup Truck Off-Highway Trucks 400 0.38 0.3514 1.88523! 4.04798 0.0049 0.1527 0.1405 Water Truck Off-Highway Trucks 400 0.38 0.3514 1.88523 4.04798 0.0049 0.1527 0.1405 Compressor Air Compressors 78 0.48 0.744 3.804 4.79 0.006 0.397 0.397 M Welder Welders 46 0.45 1:54 5.395 4.936 0.007 0:389 0.389 3 Light Other General Industrial Equipment 88 0,34 0.7155 4.04541 6.14411 0.0048 0.5178 0.4764 Other Other General Industrial Equipment 88 0.34 0.7155 4.04541 6.14411 0.0048 0.5178 0.4764 v ]Man Lift Aerial Lifts 63 0.31 0.1655 3.20103 2.72218 0.0049 0.1119 0.103 Notes: 'Types of offroad equipment present on Project site. 2Equipment categories-in.the CaIEEMod OFFROAD equipment data tables that the on-site offroad equipment would be classified as. 3Default horsepower and-load factor obtained from CaIEEMod Appendix D Table 3.3. °Emission factors for VOC,CO,NO,,,SO.,PM10,and PM2.5for calendar year 2016 were obtained from CaIEEMod Appendix D Table 3.4. 5ROG emission factors in CaIEEMod were provided by CARE. For the purposes of this analysis,ROG is assumed to be equal to VOC. 6For the purposes of this analysis,SO;is assumed to be equal to SO2. Abbreviations bhp-brake horsepower PM10-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns CARB-California Air Resources Board PM2.5-particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns g-gram ROG-reactive organic gases hp-horsepower Sox-sulfur oxides hr-hour TOG-total organic gases N20-nitrous oxide VOC-volatile organic compounds NO„-nitrogen oxides e 1of 1 4a /IRON Table 20. 2013 Offroad Equipment Data TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California • Annual Fuel Peak Monthly 30-Day Average Equipment E ui Number' Equipment q p Type' Usage' Fuel Usage2 Fuel Usage3 (gal/year) (gal/month) (gal/day) 410041 Truck 21,515 2278 76 5801751338306101.MS.. Loader 13,036 1380 46 5801761338306101 MS Loader 10,874 1151 38 4103671338310104 RM Fork Lift 4,342 460 15 4103661338310104 RM Fork Lift 2,889 306 10 N/A Other 25 3 0 5801191338310120 MS Fork Lift 2,822 299 10 410352 1338102101 Whs Fork Lift 2,659 282 9 580128 1338306101 MS Truck 2,360 250 8 410363 1338310120 MS Fork Lift 2,344 248 F- 410365 Fork Lift 2 0 0 580127 1338306101 MS Truck 2,238 237 8 580161 1338306101 MS Crane 2,130 225 8 580162 Crane 7 1 0 5801251338306101 MS Truck 1,964 208 7 580117 1338310120 MS Fork Lift 1,774 188 6 410362 1338310120 MS Fork Lift 1,607 170 6 N/A Other 30 3 0 580170 1338306101 MS Loader 1,326 140 5 580162 1338306101 MS Crane 1,119 118 4 580162 Crane 46 5 0 4103641338102101 Whs Fork Lift 1,074 114 4 410360 Fork Lift 1,021 108 4 N/A Other 1,006 106 4 410045. Railkina 975 103 3 410358 Fork Lift 935 99 3.3 N/A Other 19 2 0.1 410354 1338310101 RM Fork Lift 944 100 3.3 410361 Fork Lift 911 96 3.2 410359 Fork Lift 896 95 3.2 580126 1338306101 MS Truck 860 91 3.0 580158 Pickup Truck 757 80 2.7 410000 Crane 674 71 2.4 580164 Crane 607 64 2.1 410365 Fork Lift 590 62 2.1 700152 1338307110 MS Truck 544 58 1.9 580118 Fork Lift 366 39 1.3 580138 Fork Lift 358 38 1.3 580150 Water Truck 334 35 1.2 410301 Backhoe 330 35 1.2 580163 Fork Lift 291 31 1 1.0 Page 1of 3 It�j ENVIRON Item C-88 Table 20. 2013 Offroad Equipment Data TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Equipment Annual Fuel Peak Monthly 30-Day Average Equipment Number Types Usage Fuel Usage Fuel Usage (gal/year) (gal/month) (gal/day) 580137 Fork Lift 236 25 0.8 410029 Truck 225 24 0.8 580148 Bob Cat 198 21 0.7 580110 Truck 194 21 0.7 580194 Li ht 174 18 0.6 580141 Loader 173 18 0.6 580149 Bob Cat 153 16 0.54 700202 Crane 145 15 0.51 410030 Truck 144 15 0.51 410037 Truck 125 13 0.44 580115 Other 110 12 0.39 410033 Fork Lift 110 12 0.39 580193 Li ht 99 10 0.35 580147 Backhoe 98 10 0.35 580195 Light 87 9 0.31 580192 Light 85 9 0.30 rental Other 82 9 0.29 700172 Welder 75 8 0.26 41036 Other 74 8 0.26 700204 Man Lift 65 7 0.23 700151 Truck 63 7 0'22 580114 Fork Lift 55 6 0.19 410081 Fork Lift 54 6 0.19 700203 Man Lift 54 6 0.19 410007 Fork Lift 51 5 0.18 1190681 Other 47 5 0.17 410035 Truck 43 5 0.15 580135 Other 40 4 0.14 410080 Fork Lift 38 4 0.13 700161 Compressor 37 4 0.13 700174 Welder 32 3 0.11 410010 Other 27 3 0.10 1011730 10ther 26 3 0.09 580116 Fork Lift 24 3 0.08 700160 Fork Lift 23 2 0.08 711014 Other 21 2 0.08 700201 Crane 20 2 0.07 580196 Li ht 19 2 0.07 410119 Other 19 2 0.07 700173 Welder 15 2 0.05 700741 Other 15 2 0.05 Page 2of 3 %',q* ENVIRON Item C-89 Table 20. 2013 Offroad Equipment Data TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Equipment Annual Fuel Peak Monthly 30-Day Average Equipment Number Types Usage' Fuel Usage2 Fuel Usage3 (gal/year) (gal/month) (gal/day) 5801174 Other 14 1 0.05 140358 Other 12 1 0.04 700153 Truck 9 1 0.03 410353 Other 6 1 0.02 Total 92,012 9,742 325 Notes: 'Data provided by Gerdau. 2The peak monthly fuel usage was estimated as a product of the annual fuel usage and the maximum monthly production rate in calendar year 2013.The monthly production rate is expressed as a percentage of 2013 annual production.See Table 2 for details. 3The 30-day averages were estimated by dividing the peak monthly fuel usage by 30 days/month. Abbreviations: gal-gallon Conversion Factors: 30 days/month Page Sof 3 lid ENVIRON Item C-90 Table 21. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Off-Road Equipment TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California 2009 MND Project Revised Project Criteria Pollutant 30-Day Average Emissions Equipment 30 uel Average 30-Daysl Average 2009 MND Project 30-0a Average Emissions' Ibs/da Revised Project 30-0a Average Emissione' lbs/da Equipment Number > > : Y ( Y) Y ( YI Type FuelUesge Fuel Ussge (gaYday) (gallday) VOC Ca- NO, SOS PMko PM" VOC co NO. SOi PM,o PMZa 410041 Truck 221 177 3.35 17.95 38.55 0.05 1.45 1.34 2.68 14.36 30.84 0.04 1.16 1.07 5801751338306101 MS Loader 134 107 3.10 21.99 29.67 0.03 2.28 2.10 2.48 17.60 •23.74 0.02 1.83 1.68 5801761338306101 MS Loader 112 89 2.59 1825 24:75 0.02 1.91 1.75 2.07 14.68 19.80 0.02 1.52 1.40 4103671338310104 RM Fork Lift 45 36 1.39 7.73 11.96 0.01 1.00 0.92 1.11 6.19 9.57 0.01 0.80 0.74 4103661338310104 RM Fork Lift 30 24 0.92 5,15 7.96 0.01 0.67 0.61 0.74 4.12 6.37 0.01 0.53 0.49 NIA Other 0.3 0.2 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 1 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 5801191338310120 MS Fork LM 29 23 0.90 5.03 7.77 0.01 0.65 0.60 1 0.72 4.02 6.22 0.00 0.52 0.48 4103521338102101 Whs Fork Lift 27 22 0.85 4.74 7.32 0.01 0.61 0.56 1 0.68 3.79 5.86 0.00 0.49 0.45 580128 1338306101 MS Truck 24 19 0.37 1.97 4.23 0,01 0.18 0.15 0.29 1.58 3.38 0.00 0.13 0:12 4103831338310120 MS Fork Lift 24 18 0.75 4.17 6.46 0.01 0.54 0:50 0.60 3.34 5.17 0.00 0.43 0.40 410365 Fork Lift 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 580127 1338306101 MS Truck 23 18 0.35 1.87 4.01 0.00. 0.15 0.14 0.28 1.49 3.21 0.00 0.12 0.11 580181 1338306101 MS Crane 22 17 0.59 2.43 6.96 0.00 0.32 0.29 0.47 1.95 5.57 0.00 0.25 0.23 580162 Crane 0.1 0.1 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 580125 1338306101 MS Truck 20 16 0.31 1.64 3.52 1 0.00 0.13 0.12 0.24 1.31 2.82 0.00 0.11 0.10 580117 1338340120 MS Fork Lift 18 15 0.57 3.16 4.88 0.00 0.41 0.38 1 0.45 2.53 3.91 0.00 1 0.33 0.30 410362 1338310120 MS Fork Lit 16 13 0,51 2.86 4.43 0.00 0.37 0.34 0.41 2.29 3.54 0.00 0.30 0.27 e=t NIA Other 0.3 0.2 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 (D 5801701338308101 MS Loader 14 11 0.32 2.24 3.02 0.00' 0.23 0.21 0.25 1.79 1 2.41 0.00 0.19 0.17 3 580162 1338306101 MS Crane 11 9.2 0.31 . 1.28" 3.65 0.00 0.17. 0.15 0.25 1.02 2,92 0.00 0.13 0.12 rl 580162 Crane 0.5 0.4 0.01 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.01 0,01 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 I 4103 A 1338102101 Whs Fork Lift 11 8.6 0.34 1.91 2.96 0,00 1 0.25 0.23 0.27 1.53 2.37 0.00 0.20 0.18 lO 410360 Fork LIR 10 8.4 0.33 1.82 2.81 0.00 0.24 0.22 0.26 1.46. 2.25 0.00 0.19 0.17 N/A Other 10 8.3 0.32 1.80 2.73 0.00 0.23 0.21 1 0.25 1.44 J 2.19 0.00 1 0.18 0.17 410045 Railking 10 8.0 0.31 1.75 2.65 0.00 0.22 0.21 0.25 1.40 2.12 0.00 0.18 0.16 410358 Fork Lift 10 7.7 0.30 1.86 2.57 0.00 0.22 0.20 0.24 1 1.33 2.06 0.00 0.17 0.16 NIA Other 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0,04 0.00 0.00 0.00 410354 1338310101 RM Fork Lill 10 7.7 0.30 1.68 2.60 0.00 0.22 0.20 0.24 1.35 2.08 0.00 0.17 0.16 410361 Fork Lift 9.3 7.5 0:29 1.62 1 2.51 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.23 1.30 2.01 0.00. 0.17 0.15 410359 Fork Lift 9.2 7.3 0.29 1:59 2.47 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.23 1.28 1.97 0.00 0.17 0.15 5801261338308101 MS Truck 8.8 7A 0.13 0.72 1.54 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.57 1.23 0.00 0.05 0.04 560158 Pickup Truck 7.8 6.2 0.12 0.63 1.36 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.09 0,51 1.08 1 0.00 0.04 1 0.04 410000 Crane 8.9 5.5 0.19 0.77 2.20 0.00 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.82 1.78 0.00 0.08 0.07 . 580164 Crane 6.2 5.0 0.17 0.69 1.98 0.00 0.09 0.08 1 0.13 1 0.58 1.59 0.00 0.07 0.07 410365 Fork Lift 8.0 4.8 0.19 1.05 1.62 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.84 . 1.30 0.00 0.11 0.10 700152 1338307110 MS Truck 5.6 4.5 0.080.46 0.97 i 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.07. 0.38 0.78 0.00 0.03 0.03 580118 Fork Lift 3.7 3.0 0.12 1 0.85 1 .01 0.00 1 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.52 0.81 0.00 0.07 0.06 580138 Fork Lift 3.7 2.9 0.11 0.64 0.98 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.51 0.79 0.00 0.07 0.08 e 1of 3 VAJ IRON Table 21. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Off-Road Equipment TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California 2009 MND Project Revised Project Criteria Pollutant 30-Day Average Emissions Equipment Number' Equipment 30-Day Avenge 30-Day Average 2009 MND Project 30 Type' Fuel Usage' Fuel Usage 30-Day Average Embsbns' (lbslday) Revised Project 30-Day Average Emissions'(lbslday) (gallday) (gallday) VOC CO NO. SOS PM,, PML6 VOC CO NO, SO' PM,o PML, 580150 Water Truck 3.4 2.7 0.05 0.28 0.60 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.22 0.46 0.00 0.02 0.02 410301 Backhoe 3.4 2.7 0.08 0.56 0.75 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.44 0.60 0.00 0.05 0.04 580163 Fork Lilt 3.0 2.4 0.09 0.52 0.80 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.41 0.64 0.00 0.05 0.05 580137 Fork Lift 2.4 1.9 0.08 0.42 0.65 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.34 0.52 0,00 0.04 0.04 410029 Truck 2.3 1.8 0.03 0.19 0.40 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.01 580148 Bob Cat 2.0 1.6 0.02 0.28 1 0.31 0.00 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 1 0.23 0.25 0.00 0.01 0.01 580110 Truck 2.0 1.6 0.03 0.16 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 1 0.13 0.28 0.00 0.01 0.01 580194 Light 1.8 1.4 0.06 0.31 0.47 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.38 0.00 0.03 0.03 580141 Loader 1.8 1.4 0.04 0.29 0.39 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.23 0.32 0.00 0.02 0.02 580149 Bob Cat 1.6 1.3 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.00 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.01 700202 Crane 1.5 1.2 0.04 0.17 0.47 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.38 0.00 0.02 0.02 410030 Truck 1.5 1.2 0.02 0.12 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.01 410037 Truck 1.3 1.0 0.02 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.01 580115 Other 1.1 0.9 0.03 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.16 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.02 410033 Fork Ltft 1.1 0,9 0.04 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.16 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.02 580193 Light 1.0 0.8 0.03 0.18 0,27 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.02 580147 Backhoe 1.0 0.8 0.02 0.17 0.22 0.00 0.020.02 0.02 0.13 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.01 I'D580195 L ht 0.9 0.7 0.03 0.16 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.01 580192 Light 0.9 0.7 0.03 0.15 0.23 1 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.01 rental Other 0.8 0.7 0.03 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.01 P1 700172 Welder 0.8 0.6 0.05 0.18 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 I 41038 Other 0.8 0.6 0.02 0.13 0.20 0.00 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 to 700204 Man Lift 0.7 0.5 0,00 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 fV 700151 Truck 0.6 0.5 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 580114 Fork LIlt 0.8 0.5 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 410081 Fork Lift 0.6 0.4 0,02 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 700203CIFork an Lift 0.6 0.4 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 410007ork Ldt 0.5 0.4 0,02 0.09 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 1190681ther 0,5 0.4 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 410035ruck 0.4 0.4 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 580135ther 0.4 0.3 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 410080 Lift 0.4 0.3 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 700161 Compressor 0.4 0.3 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 700174 Weber 0.3 0.3 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.00 0,01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.08 O.OD0.00 410010 Other 0.3 0.2 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 11.04 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1011730 Other 0.3 0.2 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 1 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 580118 Fork Lift 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.04 0,07 0.00 0.01 0.01 0,01 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 700160 Fork Lift 0.2 0.2 0.01 0,04 0.08 0.00 0,01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 2of 3 4,0 ENVIRON Table 21. Criteria Air.Pollutant Emissions from Off-Road Equipment TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California 2009 MND Project Revised Project Criteria Pollutant 30-Day Average Emissions Equipment 30-Day Average 30-Day Average 2009 MND Project 30-0a Average Embslons' bslday) Revised Project 30-0a Average Emissions'(Ibslda y)Equipment Number Type' FuelUsagea Fuel (gaUday) (gaUday) VOC CO NO. so, PM,o PMU VOC CO NO, SOt PM,, PMu 711014 Other 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 700201 Crane 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 580196 Light 0.2 0.2 0,01 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 410119 Other. 0,2 0.2 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0,00 0,00 0.00 700173 Welder 0.2 0.1 0.01 0.04 0.03 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0,03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 700741 Other 0.2 0A 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 5801174 Other 0.1 0.1 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 U170. O.16 0.00 0.00 140358 Other 0.1 0.1 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 700153 Truck 0.1 0.1 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 410353 Other 0.1 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 070 0.00 Tatar 844 755 22 1Z9 213 0:20 14 13 ib 103 11 I -- 1121211; 'Data provided by Gerdau. 'Project 30-day average fuel usages were estimated by multiplying the 2013 30-day average fuel usage by the production rate scaling factor. 'Project emissions were estimated as fellows: Emission Factor(gl)hp4v)*Conversion Factor(lb/g)■Fuel Usage(gay).Diesel Density(lblgal)■Diesel Heating.Vaiue(Blugb)+Diesel BSFC(BtWhphr) h Diesel fuel density(7.1 Ibfgal),diene fuel heating value(19,300 Btullb),and average BSFC for stationary engines(7,000 B~r)were obtained from AP42 Sections 3.3 and 3.4. `rotal may be slightly different from the actual sum due to roundng: 3 n Abbreviation: Conversion Factors&Constants: bhp-brake horsepower Pound to gram 453.59237 gAb WBSFC-brake-specific fuel consumption Density of diesel fuel 7.1Wile! Btu-British thermal unit Heating value of diesel 19,300 Blulib g-gra B5FC for stationary engines 7,000 Btu/hp-hr gal-gal hr•hour lbs-pounds ,,e Sof 3 It'd VIRON Table 22. 30-Day Average Off-site Emissions from Scrap Trucks TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Parameter Units 12009 MND Project Revised Project Vehicle Miles Travelled' in SCABmiles/day 12,921 10,337. in California miles/day 17,800 14,240 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions NO, lbs/day 176.2 141.0 CO lbs/day 34.8 27.9 PM,a lbs/day 5.5 4.4 PM2,5 lbs/day 3.6 2.8 SOx lbs/day 0.5 0.4 VOC lbs/day 6.9 5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions3 CO2 MT/year 10,695 8,556 CH4 MT/year 0.07 0.06 N20 MT/year 0.4 0.3 Total GHG 4MT of CO2e/year 10,810 8,648 Notes 'Project VMT were estimated by multiplying the 2013 VMT by the production rate scaling 2Criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using the VMT in SCAB. 3Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using the VMT in California °Calculated using the following global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on ® Climate Change Second Assessment Report.Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and data/ar4/wgl/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14,Accessed August,2014. Abbreviations: Conversion Factors: CH4-methane 453.59237 g/Ib CO-carbon monoxide 1,000,000 g/MT CO2-carbon dioxide 30 days/month CO2e-carbon dioxide equivalents 12 months/year GHG-greenhouse gases GWP-Global Warming Potential Constants: lbs-pounds GWP for CH4 21 MT-metric tonne GWP for N20 310 N20-nitrous oxide NOx-nitrogen oxides PM,o-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5-particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns SCAB-South Coast Air Basin SO.-sulfur oxides VMT-vehicle miles traveled VOC-volatile organic compounds • Pagel of 1 �J ENVIRON Item C-94 Table 23. 30-Day Average On-site Emissions from Scrap Trucks TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia Parameter Units 2009 MND Project Revised Project Vehicle Miles Travelled Number of Trucks' trucks/day 174 139 On-site VMT2 miles/da 150 120 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions NOX lbs/day 2.0 1.6 CO lbs/day 0.4 0.3 PM10 lbs/day 0.1 0A. PM2.5 lbs/day 0.04 0.03 SOX lbs/day 0.01 0.004 VOC3 lbs/da 0.1 0.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions3 CO2 MT/year 89.9 71..8 CH4 MT/year 6.0E-04 4.8E-04 N20 MT-/year 3.1E-03 2.4E-03 Total GHG4 MT of CO2e/year 90.9 72.6 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions3 DPM lbs/da 0.032 0.026 Noes: 'Number of trucks were estimated by multiplying the production rate scaling factor with the maximum monthly scrap truck count in 2013 averaged over 30 days. 2Round-trip VMT were estimated based on the assumption that the one-way distance between the gate and the scrap yard is 0.43 miles. 3Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using on-site VMT. 4Calculated using the following global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report Available at http://www.ipec.ch/publications_and data/ar4/wgl/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14,Accessed August,2014. Abbreviations: Conversion Factors: CH4-methane 453.59237 g/lb CO-carbon monoxide 1,000,000 g/MT CO2-carbon dioxide 30 days/month CO2e-carbon dioxide equivalents 12 months/year DPM-diesel particulate matter GHG-greenhouse gases Constants: GWP-Global Warming Potential 0.43 miles from scrap yard to gate lbs-pounds GWP for CH4 21 MT-metric tonne GWP for N20 310 N20-nitrous oxide NOX-nitrogen oxides PM10-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5-particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns SOX-sulfur oxides VMT-vehicle miles traveled VOC-volatile organic compounds Pageiof 1 j ENVIRON Item C-95 Table 24. 2016 Calendar Year Emission Factors for Trucks TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California • 2016 Calendar Year Pollutants Emission Factors' /mile Criteria Pollutants NO, 6.2 CO 1.2 PM,o 0.19 PM2.5 0.12 SO, 0.017 VOC2 0.24 Greenhouse Gases CO2 1,669.0 CH4' 0.011 N204 0.057 Toxic Air Contaminants DPM5 0.098 Notes: 'Emission factors for heavy-heavy duty trucks in SCAB were obtained from EMFAC2011.PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors represent the sum of running exhaust,fire wear and brake wear emissions. Emission factors for other pollutants represent only running exhaust emissions. 2For the purposes of this analysis.VOC is assumed to be equal to ROG. See page 3 of the CARB EMFAC2011 User's Guide,updated January 2013:http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac20114dv-users-guide-final.pdf 3CH4 emission factor is calculated according to the CARB EMFAC2011 Frequently Asked Questions as follows:CH4= • 0.0408'TOG http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac2011-faq.htm#emfac2011_web_db_gstn07 4N20 emission factor is calculated as follows: g N20/mile=0.3316 g N20/981 diesel x 90 gal diesel/ton CO2 x ton/g x g CO2/mile The 0.3316.9/gal factor comes from the CARB EMFAC2011 Frequently Asked Questions http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac2Ol 1-faq.htm#emfac2011_web_db_gstn07. The 90 gal/ton factor is derived from the SCAB 2016 calendar year EMFAC2011 emissions output for heavy-heavy duty trucks. 5DPM emissions are equivalent to PM10 running exhaust emissions. Abbreviations: Conversion Factors: CARB-California Air Resources Board 0.0408 ratio of CH4:TOG CH4-methane 0.3316 g N20/gal diesel CO-carbon monoxide 90 gal diesel/ton CO2 CO2-carbon dioxide 2000 Ib/ton DPM-diesel particulate matter 453.59237 glib EPA-Environmental Protection Agency g-gram N20-nitrous oxide NO,-nitrogen oxides PM70-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5-particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns ROG-reactive organic gases SCAB-South Coast Air Basin SO,-sulfur oxides VOC-volatile organic compounds Pagelof 114 ENVIRON Item C-96 Table 25. 2013 Scrap Truck Data TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia One-Way One-Way Average Average %of One-Way One-Way Annual Annual Distance Distance Distance to Scrap Destination City' State' Distance Distance VMT within VMT within within Destination Range' Trucks' SCAB2 2 within 3 within 3 SCAB 4 California ° SCAB California Anaheim California 1 39 39 Coachella California 54 90 Colton California 16 16 EI Monte California 32 32 Gardena California 58 58 Hesperia California 22 36 Irwindale California 29 1 29 Lancaster California 22 75 Los Angeles California 46 46 Within 75 Montebello California 40 40 miles from 90% Moreno Valley California 25 25 35 42 1,085,334 1,293,771 Gerdau Murrieta California 49 49 Oceanside California. 66 85 Ontario Califomia 10 10 Pomona California 18 18 Rancho Cucamonga California 4 4 San Bernardino California 18 18 Santa Fe Springs California 42 42 . Santa Ana California 44 44 Sun Valley_ California 56 56 Thousand Palms California 54 75 Mojave California 22 100 75 and Oxnard California 80 103 125 miles 6% San Dego California 66 113 62 106 126,964 216,043 from Ventura Califomia 80. 106 Calexico California 54 182 More than EI Centro California 54 172 125 miles 3% Las Vegas Nevada 22 183 59 237 60,001 242,869 from Richmond Califomia 109 420 Gerdau Yuma Arizona 1 54 229 Total Annual VMT 1,27Z298 1,752,683 Peak Month AW . . 133,381 183,742 30-Day Average VMT6 4,446 6,125 Notes: 'Data provided by Gerdau.90%of the.scrap was delivered from the sites within 75 miles,6%from sites within 75 to 125 miles,and 3%from beyond 125 mites of the Project site.Detailed scrap truck counts by their departure locations were not available,and thus the VMT were estimated based on these categories. ZDistances were estimated based on the default route from Google Maps. c 'Distances for each category were averaged since detailed scrap truck counts were not available. "VMT were estimated as the total round-trip distance for all trucks.Total number of scrap trucks servicing Project site In 2013 was 17,065. . °Peak monthly VMT were estimated as a product of annual VMT and maximum monthly percentage of scrap trucks. °30-day averages were estimated by dividing the peak month estimates by 30 daystmonth. Abbreviations: SCAB-South Coast Air Basin VMT-vehicle miles traveled Conversion Factors: 30 daystmonth Pagelof 1 Ad ENVIRON Item C-97 Table 26. Monthly Distribution of Scrap Trucks in 2013 TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California ® Month Number of Scrap Trucks' % of Scrap Trucks January 1,274 7% February 739 4% March 1,301 8% April 1,642 10% May 1,764- 10% June 1,611 9% July 1,444 8% ,August 970 6% September 1,101 6% October 1,789 10% November 1,685 10% December 1,745 10% 2013 Total 17,065 100% Notes: 'Data provided by Gerdau. r Pagelof 1Itj ENVIRON Item C-98 Table 27. 30-Day Average Off-site Emissions from Product Delivery Trucks TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia Parameter Unit 2009 MND Revised Project Project Vehicle Miles Travelled VMT in SCAB miles/day 9,310 7,448 VMT in California miles/day 29,1.08 23,287 Cirteria Air Pollutant Emissions2 NQ, lbs/day 127.0 . 101.6 CO lbs/day 25.1 20.1 PMt0 lbs/day 4.0 3.2 PM2.5 lbs/day 2.6 2.1 so, lbs/day 0.3 0.3 VOC lbs/da 4.9 4.0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions3 CO2 MT/year 17,490 13,992 CH4 MT/year 1.2E-01 9.4E-02 N20 MT/year 6.0E-01 4.8E-01 Total GHG° MT of CO2e/year 17677.2 14141.8 Notes: 'Project VMT were estimated by multiplying the 2013 VMT by the production rate scaling factor. 2Criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using.the VMT in SCAB. 3Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using the VMT in California. 4Calculated using the following global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report.Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14,Accessed August,2014. Abbreviations: CH4-methane CO-carbon monoxide CO2-carbon dioxide CO2e-carbon dioxide equivalents GHG-greenhouse gases GWP-Global Warming Potential lbs-pounds MT-metric tonne N20-nitrous oxide N%-nitrogen oxides PM10-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5-particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns SCAB-South Coast Air Basin SO„-sulfur oxides VMT-vehicle miles traveled VOC-volatile organic compounds Conversion Factors: Constants: 453.59237 g/lb GWP for CH4 21 1,000,000 g/MT GWP for N20 310 30 daystmonth 12 months/year Pagelof 1 1k,0 ENVIRON Item C-99 Table 28. 30-Day Average On-site Emissions from Product Delivery Trucks TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California ® Parameter Units 2009 MND Project Revised Project Vehicle Miles Travelled Number of Trucks' trucks/da 108 87 On-site VMT2 miies/day 56 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions3 NO, lbs/day 0.94 0.76 CO lbs/day 0.19 0.15 PM10 lbs/day 0.03 0.02 PM2.5 lbs/day 0.02 0.02 S% lbs/day 0.003 0.002 VOC lbs/day 0.04 0.03 Greenhouse Gas Emissions; CO2 MT/year 41.5 33.5 CH4 MT/year 2.8E-04 2.2E-04 N20 MT/year 1.4E-03 1.1 E-03 Total GHG4 MT of CO2e/year 42.0 33.8 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions3 DPM lbs/da 0.015 0.012 Notes: 'Number of trucks were estimated by.multiplying the 2013 VMT by the production rate scaling factor. 2Round-trip VMT were estimated assuming the one-way distance between the rebar yard and the gate is 0.32 miles. 3Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using on-site VMT. ® 4Calculated using the following global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report.Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wgl/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14, Accessed August,2014. Abbreviations: CH4-methane CO-carbon monoxide CO2-carbon dioxide CO2e-carbon dioxide equivalents DPM-diesel particulate matter GHG-greenhouse gases GWP-Global Warming Potential lbs-pounds MT-metric tonne N20-nitrous oxide N%-nitrogen oxides PM70-particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5-particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns SO,-sulfur oxides VMT-vehicle miles traveled VOC-volatile organic compounds Conversion Factors: Constants: 453.59237 g/Ib 0.32 miles from rebar yard to gate 1,000,000 g/MT GWP for CH4 21 30 days/month GWP for N20 310 • 12 months/year Pagelof 1 i.4 ENVIRON Item C-100 Table 29. 2013 Product Delivery Truck Data TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia of VMT within VMT within Destination City' State' Shipment Number s One-Way One-Way Distance within Distance within (tons) Trucks SCAB Califomia' SCAB California San Bernardino California 68,092 2,838 18 18 102,168 102,168 NaDa California 21,439 894 109 440 194,892 786,720 Glendale Arizona 20,722 864 54 186 93,312 321,408 Rancho Cucamonga California 18,913 789 4 4 6,312 6,312 Perris California 13,098 546 33 33 36,036 36,036 Lindon Utah 10,814 451 22 183 19,844 165,066 Fontana California 9,834 410 6 6 4,920 4,920 Santa Clarita California 5,421 226 72 72 32,544 32,544 Lathrop California 5,400 226 109 368 49,268 166,336 Rancho Cucamonga California 5,379 225 4 4 1,800 11800 Riverside California 4,863 203 16 16 6,496 6,496 Rancho Cucamonga California 4,835 202 4 4 1,616 1,616 Livermore California 3,356 140 109 379 30,520 106,120 Sun Valley California 3,029 127 56 56 14,097 14,097 Henderson Nevada 2,968 124 22 183 5,456 45,384 Fairfield California 2,916 122 109 433 26,596 1 105,652 Fremont California 2,829 118 109 395 251724 93,220 Chino California 2,784 116 16 16 3,596 3,596 San Jose California 2,377 100 109 379 21,800 75,800 Pomona . California 2,275 95 18 18 3,325 3,325 Rancho Cucamonga California 2,266 95 4 4 760 760 Bakersfield California 2,091 88 109 151 19,184 26,576 Ontario California 2,086 87 10 10 1,723 1,723 Auburn Washington 2,083 87 109 701 18,966 121,974 Ventura California 2,017 85 80 106 13,600 18,020 Sacramento California 1,760 74 109 424 16,132 62.752 Rialto California 1,722 72 10 10 1,454 1,454 Tracy California 1,386 58 109 363 12,644 42,108 Bakersfield California 1,280 54 109 151 11,772 1 16,308 North Las Vegas Nevada 1,263 53 22 183 2,332 19,398 Phoenix Arizona 1,227 52 54 186. 5,616 19,344 Vancouver Washf n 1,221 51 22 701 2244 71,502 Union Ci California 1,201 51 109 407 11,118 41,514 Fresno California 1,131 48 109 258 10,464 24,768 Ventura California 988 42 80 106 6,720 8,904 Denver Colorado 883 37 22 183 1,628 13,542 Van N California 815 34 59 59 3,992 3,992 Fresno California 795 34 109 258 7,412 17,544 Watsonville California 722 31 109 366 6,758 22,692 Santa Rosa California 697 30 109 467 6,540 28,020 Ontario California 695 29 10 10 574 574 Ka olei Hawaii 680 29 63 63 3,666 3,666 Benicia California 662. 28 109 417 6,104 23,352 Concord California 577 1 25 109 409 5.450 20,450 Antioch California 561 24 109 393 5,232 18,864 Fresno California 530 23 109 258 5,014 11,868 Thornton California 504 22 - 109 397 4,796 17,468 Colton California 412 18 16 16 576 576 EI Ca'on California 409 18 66 115 2,376 4,140 Long Beach California 386 17 59 59 1,992 1,992 South San Francisco California 385 17 109 416 3,706 14,144 Las Vegas Nevada 336 15 22 183 660 5,490 Fontana California 278 12 6 6 144 144 Ontario California 256 11 10 10 218 218 South EI Monte California 243 11 35 35 763 763 Poway California 216 10 66 95 1,320 1,908 Bakersfield California 193 9 109 151 1'962 2.718 San Francisco California 192 9 109 421 1,962 7'578 Lakeside California 191 8 66 116 1,056 1,856 Union City California 190 8 109 407 1,744 6,512 Fontana California 190 8 6 6 96 96 Fontana California 189 8 6 6 96 96 Salinas California 169 .8 109 343 1,744 Stockton icallfornia 168 1 8 109 376 1,744 6,016 Fontana lCalifornia 155 1 7 6 6 84 84 Pagelof i �,4 ENVIRON Item C-101 Table 29. 2013 Product Delivery Truck Data TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California ® , One-Way One-Way Shipment Number of VMT within VMT within Destination City State s Distance within Distance within 4 (tons) Trucks SCAB' California SCAB California San Diego —,California 145 7 66 113 924 1,582 San Leandro California 132 6 109 401 1,308 4,812 Fontana California 125 6 6 6 72 72 Vallejo California 118 5 109 423 1,090 4,230 Fountain Valley California 110 5 50 50 504 504 Northridge California 99 5 69 69 686 686 Fresno California 97 5 109 258 1,090 2,580 Union City California 97 5 109 407 1,090 4,070 Santa Fe Springs California 92 4 42 42 334 334 San Francisco California 84 4 109 421 872 3,368 Mesa Arizona 73 4 54 186 432 1,488 San Bernardino California— 72 3 18 18 108 108 Bakersfield California 71 3 109 151 654 906 Rocklin California 50 3 109 448 654 2,688 Sun Valley California 50 3 56 56 333 333 Las Vegas Nevada 49 3 22 183 132 1,098 North Highlands Califomia 48 3 .109 438 654 2,628 Sacramento California 48 2 109 424 436 1,696 Alpine California 25 2 66 130 264 520 Perris California 25 2 33 33 132 132 San Marcos California 25 2 66 82 264 326 Santa Paula California 24 2 75 104 300 416 Vancouver Washington 24 2 22 701 88 2,804 Oak View California 24 1 80 119 160 238 Eugene Oregon 23 1 109 701 218 1,402 Corcoran lCalifornia 23 1 109 214 218 428 Benicia lCalffomia 1 22 1 109 417 218 834 Total 10,451 907,695 2,837,856 Peak Months 1,107 96,108 300,475 ® 30-0 e°Avera 37 3,204 10,016 Notes 'Data provided by Gerdau. Number of trucks calculated based on the assumption that each truck carries twenty four tons of shipment. 'Distances were estimated based on the default route from Google Maps. `VMT were estimated as the total round-trip distance for all trucks. 'Peak monthly trucksNMT were estimated as a product of annual tucksNMT and the maximum monthly production rate in calendar year 2013.The monthly production rate is expressed as a percentage of 2013 annual production.See Table 2 for details. 530-day averages were estimated by dividing the peak month estimates by 30 days/month. Abbreviations SCAB-South Coast Air Basin VMT-vehicle miles traveled Conversion Factors 24 tons/truck 30 days/month Page2of 2 14 ENVIRON Item C-102 Table 30. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the EAF Burner TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia GHG Unit 2009 MND Project Revised Project CO2' _ MT/year 6,715 5,423 CH4' MT/year 0.13 0.10 N20' MT/year 0:01 0.01 Total GHG2 MT CO2e/year 6,721 5,429 Notes: 'Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using fuel based emission factors for industrial manufacturing section obtained from California's Greenhouse Gas Inventory,Section 1A2m(Year 2012).Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cclihventoty/dbeldoc—index.php.Accessed August,2014. . 2Calculated using global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report.Available at http://www.ipoc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wgl/en/ch2s2-1Q- 2.html#table-2-14,Accessed August,2014. Abbreviations: CH4-'methane CO2-carbon dioxide CO2e-carbon dioxide equivalents EAF-electric arc furnace EPA-Environmental Protection Agency g-gram GHG-greenhouse gases GWP-Global Warming Potential kg-kilogram MT-metric tonne N20-nitrous oxide Conversion Factors: 1,000,000 g/MT Constants CO2 Emission Factor 54.4 g/scf CH4 Emission Factor 1.026E-03 9/scf N20 Emission Factor 1.026E-04 9/scf GWP for CH4 21 GWP for N20 310 Page 1of 1 i® ENVIRON Item C=103 • Table 31. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California 2009 MNO Project 30 Day Average Fuel Use and Annual Emissions Emission Source' Fuel Usage CO,' CH4' N202Total GHG3 (MT/year) (MT/year) (MT/year) (MT COze/year) Vertical Ladle Heater 140,626 scf natural gas/day 2,754 0.05 0.01 2,757 South Ladle Heater 203,219 scf natural gas/day 3,980 0.08 0.01 3,984 North Ladle Heater 256,155 scf natural gastday 5,017 0.09 0.01 5,021 Billet Reheat Furnace 2,200,000 scf natural gastday 43,085 0.8 0.08 43,127 MWack 15.00 gal diesel/day 55 0.002 0.0004 55 Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment 102,687 scf natural gas/day 2,011 0.04 0.004 2,013 Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment 107.33 gal gasolinefday 345 0.01 0.003 346 Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equipment 3.16 gal diesel/day 12 0.0005 0.0001 12 Total — 57,257 1.1 0.11 57,315 h M 3 n I o Page 1 of 2 1,0 ENVIRON Table 31. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Revised Project 30 Day Average Fuel Use and Annual Emissions Emission Source' FuelUsage Co22 CH42 N'02 Total GHG3 (MT/Year) (MT/year) (MT/year) (MT COzelyear) Vertical Ladle.Heater 140,626 scf natural gas/day 2,754 0.05 0.01 2,757 South Ladle.Heater 203,219 scf natural gas/day 3,980 0.08 0.01 3;984 North Ladle Heater 256,155 scf natural gas/day 5,017 0.09 0.01 5,021 Billet Reheat Furnace 2,200,000 scf naturalnas/day 43,085 0.8 0.08 43,127 Mi-Jack 15.00 gal diesel/day 55 0.002 0.0004 55 Rule 219 Exerht Natural Gas Equipment 62,150 scf natural gas/day 1,609 0.03 0.003 1,610 Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment 85.86 al'gasoline/day 276 0.01 0.002 277 Rule 219 Exem bDiesel Equipment 0.25 gal diesel/day 1 0.00004 0.00001 1 Total — 56;776 1.1 0.11 56;832 Notes: 'Only sources that have GHG emissions are shown. 2Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using fuel based emission factors for industrial manufacturing section obtained from Callfomia's Greenhouse Gas Inventory,Section Wrn(Year 2012).Available at ...f http:Nwww.arb.ca.gov/Ccrmwentory/docidoc_indox.php.Accessed August,2014. ID 3 3Calculated using global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report. Available at http:/Avww.ipcc.chipublicationa_and_data/ar4/wgllen/Ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14,Accessed August,2014. n 1 Abbreviations: CH4-methane GHG-greenhouse gases U CO2-carbon dioxide GWP-Global Warming Potential CO2e-carbon dioxide equivalents MT-metric tonne g-gram N20-nitrous oxide gal-gallon scf-standard cubic feel Constants and Conversion Factors: Metric tonne to gram 1,000,000 g/MT Mgal to gal 1,000 gal/Mgal 30 days/month 12 monthslyear CO2 Emission Factor 10,206 g/gal of diesel 8,917 g/gal of gasoline 54.4 g/sd of natural gas CH4 Emission Factor 0.414 9/gal of diesel 0.375 glgal of gasoline 1.03E-03 glsd of natural gas N20 Emission Factor 0.0828 glgal of diesel 0.075 9/gal of gasoline 1.03E-04 gisd of natural gas GWP for CH. 21 GWP for N20 310 e 2 of 2 �� /IRON Table 32. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Off-Road Equipment TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California • 30-Day Average Fuel Use and Parameter Unit Annual Emissions 2009 MND Project Revised Project Diesel Fuel Use' gal/day 944 755 CO22 MT/year 3,468 2,774 CH42 MT/year 1.41 E701 1.13E-01 N202 MT/year 2.81 E-02 2.25E-02 Total GHG4 MT of CO2e/year 3,479 2,783 Notes: 'Project 30-day average fuel usages were estimated by multiplying the 2013 30-day average fuel usage by the production rate scaling factor. 2Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using fuel based emission factors for off-road construction and industrial equipment obtained from California's Greenhouse Gas Inventory,Section 1A3eii(year 2012).Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/doc—index.php.Accessed August,2014. 3Calculated using the following global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report.Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wgl/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14,Accessed August, 2014. Abbreviations: CH4-methane ® CO2-carbon dioxide CO2e-carbon dioxide equivalents g-gram gal-gallon GHG-greenhouse gases GWP-Global Warming Potential MT-metric tonne N20-.nitrous oxide Constants and Conversion Factor: CO2 Emission Factor 10,206 g/gal of diesel CH4 Emission Factor 0.414 g/gal of diesel N20 Emission Factor 0.0828 g/gal of diesel GWP for CH4 21 GWP for N20 310 Metric tonne to gram 1,000,000 g/MT 30 days/month 12 months/year Page iof i 1k,4 ENVIRON Item C-106 Table 33. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from the EAI= Baghouse and Burner TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia Emission Emission Factor ?009 MND Project Revised Project Toxic Air Contaminant CAS Number FactorsUnits 30-Day Average Emissions 30-Day Average Emissions Ibslda Ibslda Inorganic TAW Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.14E-06 Ib/ton Steel 0.003 0.003 Produced Beryllium 7440-41-7 9.11E-07 Ib/ton SteelProduced 0.003 0.002 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.33E-05 Ib/ton Steel 0.070 0.056 Produced Ib/ton Steel Hexavalent Chromium 18540-29-9 1.18E-05 produced 0.035 0.028 Copper 7440-50-8 2.96E-04 lb/ton Steel 0.89 0.71 Produced Lead 7439-92-1 1.91 E-03 Ib/ton Steel 5.7 4.6 Produced Manganese 7439-96-5 1.58E-03 Iroodd Produced Steel 4.7 P3. Pr Mercury 7439-97-6 7.46E-04 Ib/ton Steel 2.2 1.8 Produced Nickel 7440-02-0 4.55E-05 Ib/ton Steel. 0.14 0.11 Produced Selenium 7782-49-2 5.29E-06 Ib/ton Steel 0.016 0.013 Produced Organic TACs3 Benzene 71-43-2 0.0058 Ib/MMscf 0.001 0.001 Formaldehyde 50-00-0 0.0123 lb/MMscf 0.002 0.002 Total PAI-Is(excluding 1151 0.0001 Ib/MMscf 1.7E-05 1.4E-05 Naphthalene) Naphthalene 91-203 0.0003 Ib/MMscf 5.1E-05 4.2E-05 Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 0.0031 Ib/MMscf 5.3E-04 4.3E-04 Acrolein 107-02-8 0.0027 Ib/MMscf 4.6E-04 3.7E-04 Ammonia -7664-41-7 32 Ib/MMscf 1.1 0.89 No SCR/NSCR Ethyibenzene 100-41.4 0.0069 Ib/MMscf 0.001 0.001 Hexane 110-54-3 0.0046 Ib/MMscf 7.9E-04 6.4E-04 Toluene 108-88-3 0.0265 Ib/MMscf 0.005 0.004 Xylene 1330-20-7 0.0197 Ib/MMscf 0.003 0.003 Dioxins 1086 1.78E-09 lb/tonrSteel Produced 5.3E-06 4.3E-06 Pd Notes 'TAC emission factors were obtained from the 2014 SCAQMD permit application for the proposed baghouse. 2Inorganic TACs and dioxins are emitted as a result of the steel production process. 30-day average emissions were estimated by multiplying the emission factor by the monthly production rate and dividing by 30 days/month. Organic TACs except for dioxins are emitted as a result of the natural gas combustion in the bumers. A control efficiency of 50%,from the 2014 SCAQMD permit application,was assumed for all TACs from natural gas combustion except ammonia. Abbreviations: CAS-Chemical Abstracts Service PAH-polyaromatic hydrocarbons hr-hour SCAOMD-South Coast Air Quality Management District Ib-pounds TAC-toxic air contaminant MMscf-million standard cubic feet yr-year Conversion Factors: Constants: 1,000,000 sd/MMscf 50%Control efficiency for gaseous TACs(excluding ammonia)from combustion 30 days/month Page iof.1 1i ENVIRON Item C-107 ® • Table 34. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Factors from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Factors Chromium, Arsenic and Lead Benzene Formaldehyde Total PAH Naphthalene Ammonia 1,3-Butadiene Cadmium hexavalent Compounds compounds Emission Source Y p po pounds Nickel Beryllium Unit (and (inorganic) (inorganic) compounds) CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. 71432 50000 1151 91203 7664417 106990 7440439 18540299 7440382 7439921 7440020 7440417 Vertical Ladle Heater Ib/MMsd 0.0058 0.0123 0.0001 0.0003 3.2 South Ladle Heater Ib/MMsd 0.0058 0.0123 0.0001 0.0003 1 3.2 North Ladle Heater Ib/MMsd 0.0058 0.0123 0.0001 0.0003 1 3.2 Billet Reheat Furnace Ib/MMsd 0.0017 0.0036 0.0001 0.0003 1 3.2 8.25E-07 1.54E-06 1.45E-05 2.66E-06 2.04E-07 Storage Silo,Quicklime Hopper.Quicklime _- Screw Conveyor,Quicklime Storage Silo,Dolomite Lime Storage Silo,Carbon Unloading Ib/ton 6.0E-07 Storage Silo,Carbon Pro-Injection Ib/ton - 5.0E-07 Conveyor 1,Screw,Carbon Ib/ton - - 5.5E-08 Conveyor 2,Screw,Carbon Ib/ton - 5.5E-08 Injector 1,Carbon lb/ton - 5.5E-08 Injector 2,Carbon Ib/lon 5.5E-08 Gasoline Storage Tank Ib/M al 0.0074 _ _ Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle IWM al 0.007 _ R219 Cooling Towers,Non-Contac) Mi Jack - - - - - - -- 3 Ib/M al 0.1863 1.7261 0.0362 0.0197 0.8 0.2174 0.0015 0.0001 0.0016 0.0083 0.0039 - Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas I Equipment Ib/MMsd 0.008 0.017 0.0001 0.0003 3.2 - - - - .a Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment Ib/M al 3.80605 3.452 0.143833 0.918321 0.0025 _ Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equipment Ib/M al 0.1863 1.7261 0.0362 0.0197 0.8 0.2174 0.00150.0001 0.0016 0.0083 0.003900 - Diesel Storage Tank Notes: 018931. ' Abbreviations: CAS-Chemical Abstracts Service Ib-pound Mgal-thousand gallons MMscf-million standard cubic feet No.-number PAH-polyaromatic hydrocarbons Page 1 of 1 �� ENVIRON Table 35. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 2009 MND Project 30-Day Average Emissions(lb/day) Emission Source Benzene Formaldehyde Total PAH Naphthalene Ammonia 1,3 Butadiene CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. 71432 50000 1151 91203 7664417 106990 Vertical Ladle Heater 8.16E-04 1.73E-03 1.41 E-05 4.22E-05 4.50E-01 - South Ladle Heater 1.18E-03 2.50E=03 2.03E-05 6.10E-05 .6.50E-01 North Ladle Heater 1.49E-03 3.15E-03 .2.56E-05 7.68E-05 8.20E-01 _. Billet Reheat Furnace 3.74E-03 7.92E-03 220E-04 6.60E-04 .7.04E+00 Storage Silo,Carbon Unloading - -Storage Silo,Carbon Pre4n'ection -Conveyor 1,Screw,Carbon - - - - Conveyor 2,Screw,Carbon - - Injector 1,Carbon - - - Injector 2,Carbon - - - Gasoline Storage Tank 2.70E-04 - - - - Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle 2.56E-04 - - - Mi-Jack 2.79E-03 2.59E-02 5.43E-04 2.96E-04 1.20E-02 3.26E-03 Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment 8.21 E-04 1.75E-03 1.03E-05 3.08E-05 3.29E-01 - Rule 219 Exem t Gasoline E4ui-ment 4.09E-01 3.71E-01 - 1.54E-02 - 9.86E42 Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equip ment 1.08E-02 I 1.00E-01 2.10E-03 1.14E-03 4.65E-02. 1.26E-02 Total I 431E-01 5.14E-01 I 2.94E-03 1.77E-02 9.35E+00 1.14E-01 Page 1of4 t,4 ENVIRON Item C-109 Table 35. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, California • 2009 MND Project 30-Day Average Emissions(Ib/day) Chromium, Arsenic and Lead Cadmium hexavalent Compounds compounds Nickel Beryllium Emission Source (and (inorganic) .(inorganic) compounds) CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. 7440439 18540299 7440382 7439921 7440020 7440417 Vertical Ladle Heater — — — — — South Ladle Heater — — — North Ladle Heater — — — — Billet Reheat Furnace 2.75E-03 5.13E-03 4.83E-02 8.87E-03 6.80E-04 Storage Silo,Carbon Unloading — — — 1.88E-05 — Stora a Silo,Carbon Pre-Injection — — — — 1.88E-05 — Conveyor 1,Screw,Carbon — — — — 2.09E-06 — Conveyor 2,Screw,Carbon — — — — 2.09E-06 — Injector 1,Carbon — — — 1.05E-06 — Injector 2,Carbon — — — — 1.05E-06 — Gasoline Storage Tank — — — — — — Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle — — — — — Mi-Jack 2.25E-05 1.50E-06 2.40E-05 1.25E-04 5.85E-05 Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment — — — — — — Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment — — 3.49E-04 Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equipment 8.72E-05 5.81 E-06 9.30E-05 4.82E-04 2.27E-04 Total I 2.86E-03 I 7.31E-06 I 5.25E-03 I 4.89E-02 9.54E-03 6.80E-04 Page 2of 4 14 ENVIRON Item C-110 Table 35. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia Revised Project 30.-Day Average Emissions(lb/day) Emission Source Benzene Formaldehyde PAH Naphthalene Ammonia 1,3-Butadiene CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. 71432 50000 1151 _ 91203 7664417 106990 Vertical Ladle Heater 8.16E-04 113E-03 1.41 E-05 4.22E-05 4.50E-01 South Ladle Heater 1.18E-03 2.50E-03 2.03E-05.. ._. 6.10E-OS.. 6.50E-01 North Ladle Heater 1.49E=03 3.15E-03 2.56E-05 7.68E-05 8.20E-01 Billet Reheat.Fumace 3.74E-03 7.92E-03 2.20E-04 6.60E-04 7.04E+00 = Storage Silo,Carbon Unloadin� Storage Silo,Carbon Pre-In'edtion Corive or 1,Scfew,Carbon - - - Conveyor 2,Screw,Carbon Injector 1,Carbon Injector 2,Carbon Gasoline Storage Tank 2.16E-04 - - Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle 2.04E-04 - Mi-Jack 2.79E-03 2.59E-02 5.43E=04 .2.96E-04_..... .1.20E-.02 3.26E-03 Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment 6.57E-04 1.40E=03 8.21 E-06 2.46E-05 2.63E-01 - Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment 3.27E-01 2.96E-01 - 1.24E-02 - 7.89E-02 Rule 219 Exempt Diesel E W merit 8.66E-04 8.02E-03 1.68E-04 9.16E-05 3.72E-03 1.01 E-03 Total 3AE-01 3.5E-01 1.0E-03 1.4E-02 9.2E+00 8.3E-02 Page 3of 4 �� ENVIRON Item C-111 Table 35. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Stationary Sources TAMCO Steel Mill Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia ® Revised Project 30-Day Average Emissions(Ib/day) Chromium, Arsenic and Lead Emission Source Cadmium hexavalent Compounds compounds Nickel Beryllium (and compounds) (inorganic) (inorganic) CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. CAS No. 7440439 18540299 7440382 7439921 7440020 7440417 Vertical Ladle Heater South Ladle Heater North Ladle Heater Billet Reheat Furnace 2.20E-03 — 4.11 E-03 3.87E-02 7.09E-03 5.44E-5T-- Storage .44E-04Stora a Silo,Carbon Unloading — — — 1.51 E-05 — Stora a Silo,Carbon Pre-Injection — — — 1.51 E-05 — Conveyor 1,Screw,Carbon — — — — 1.67E-06 — Conveyor 2.Screw,Carbon — — — 1.67E-06 — In'ector 1,Carbon — — — 8.37E-07 — In'ector 2,Carbon — — — 8.37E-07 Gasoline Storage Tank Gasoline Dispensing Nozzle Mi-Jack 2.25E-05 1.50E-06 2.40E-05 1.25E-04 5.85E-05 — Rule 219 Exempt Natural Gas Equipment Rule 219 Exempt Gasoline Equipment — — 2.79E-04 — Rule 219 Exempt Diesel Equipment 6.97E-06 4.65E-07 7.44E-06 3.86E-05 1.81E-05 — Total 2.2E-03 2.0E-06 4.1 E-03 3.9E-02 7.5E-03 5.4E-04 Abbreviations: CAS-Chemical Abstracts Service Ib-pound No.-number PAH-polyaromatic hydrocarbons ® Conversion Factors: 1,000,000 scf/MMscf 1,000 gal/Mgal Page 4of 4 �� ENVIRON Item C-112 STAFF REPORT ' L.ANNING DEPARTMENT ' • RANCHO Date: January 14, 2009 C;UCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director By: Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2008-00512 - TAMCO STEEL - JACK BURDETTE - A request to demolish and replace two industrial buildings: First, a 6,500 square foot bag house air filtering system will be demolished and replaced with a 16,781 square foot bag house air filtering system. Second,an 11,778 square foot electrical substation building will be demolished to allow for the construction of a 21,840 square foot electrical substation building. This will allow for an increase of production at the existing TAMCO Steel Plant on approximately 80 acres of land in Subarea 15 of the Industrial Specific Plan in the Heavy Industrial (HI) Development District, located at 12459-B Arrow Route APN: 0229-121-35. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ® PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Existing Industrial Building with storage yard; Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15). Across Arrow Route: Existing Industrial Building; General Industrial (Subarea 8) South - Existing Industrial Storage Yard and Office Building; Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) East - Existing Industrial Buildings and Storage Yard; Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) West - Existing Utility Uses; Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - See table above. North - Heavy Industrial (HI), Across Arrow Route General Industrial (GI) South - Heavy Industrial (HI) East - Heavy Industrial (HI) West - Heavy Industrial (HI) Site Characteristics: The 80-acre project site is a'puzzle piece'shaped parcel that is surrounded by existing development. The existing TAMCO Steel Plant is set back from the street over 700 feet at the entrance and surrounded by industrial uses but has a 330-foot piece of the parcel that fronts Arrow Route west of the entrance. The site gains access by a 25-foot access easement from Arrow Route that gives this site a flag lot appearance. The property is bordered along the south property line by the Santa Fe Railroad tracks, with rail spurs branching onto the site. &HIBIT N Item C-113 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 2 C. Parking Calculations: Parking For TAIVICO Steel USES _ q; Foote Numb 9 Erof S `o Pec a ulred; R� NumEier ,fSpaces Office 19,049 76 spaces 76 Ratio 1:250 square feet Manufacturing 91,113 182 spaces 185 Ratio 1:500 square feet Warehouse 70,490 38 spaces total 38 (Ratio 1:1000 square feet. Up to 20,000 square feet)=20 (Ratio 1:2,000 square feet from 20,000-40,000)=10 Ratio 1:4,000 square feet over 40,000 square feet =8 Totals 180 652:: 296's` aces: ' 299 s aces ANALYSIS: A. General: The primary purpose for the installation of a bag house air filtration system attached to the melt shop of the TAMCO Steel Plant is to maintain compliance with the state and federal regulations and increase the throughput. The proposal is to demolish the existing air pollution control system that is a 6,500 square foot bag type filter and replace it with a new air pollution control system that will be 16,781 square feet and is also a bag type filter. The height of the new system is 109 feet tall, and the height of the existing melt shop building that this filter will be adjacent to is 123 feet tall. This building is proposed to be constructed of corrugated metal,which is the same as the existing melt shop building. Both buildings will be painted to match. The new electrical substation will be 21,840 square feet, and the existing.substation to be demolished is 11,778 square feet. The substation will be constructed of the same materials and painted the same colors as the existing substations that will remain on the site. These buildings are constructed of CMU block and painted white. The structures increase the parking count but are not manned except for maintenance of these buildings. The site has 299 parking stalls and only requires 296 as. specified in the chart located in section 'C' Parking Calculations. The current plant is on approximately 80.02 acres of developed industrial zoned land located on the south side of Arrow Route, between the 1-15 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue. TAMCO Steel was founded in 1956 as Etiwanda Steel Producers. It is the only mini steel mill-in California. The current throughput of the plant is 51,210 tons a month. With the new bag house, this can be increased to 100,000 tons a month without an increase of emissions. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has issued a permit to operate the facility with the new equipment and is requiring annual testing of the equipment to assure that this new equipment performs as specified. These test requirements may be removed later if it is determined'that the bag house performance is consistent over a number of years. The applicant has agreed to plant trees along the west and part of the south property lines to create a screen wall to soften the visual impacts of the new and existing large building on the site. B. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee(Munoz, Stewart, and Nicholson) on November 18, 2008. The Committee approved the project as presented, as the project is an upgrade in equipment to satisfy air quality standards for the future Item C-114 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 3 and theossible increase crease in production. The South Coast Air Quality Management District had already issued a permit.to operate the facility with the new equipment. C. Grading and Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by both Committees on November 18, 2008. The Committees conceptually approved the plans. D. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was prepared for the entire project and released for public review on December 17, 2008. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, staff determined that the project could have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact unless reduced to a level of less-than-significant by the implementation mitigation measures. Areas identified as subject to potential environmental impacts were in Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Water, Noise, Air Quality, and Geology and Soils. Proposed mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval for the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for the project. 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 plus radius of the project site. A total of 12 notices were mailed. No direct public comments to staff have been received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Jam . Troyer, AICP Plan ng Director JRT:SF/ge Attachments: Exhibit A-Project Plans Exhibit B -Initial Study Parts I and II Draft Resolution Recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 • A-3 Item C-115 m x CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA W JAN 0 5 Lu::�+ � T --LANINGRECEIVED - PN 0 12459-B ARROW ROUTE 4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 N 2008 NEW AIR FILTERING. EQUIPMENT & "+10-P-4-' ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION UPGRADE `A N AM�Nijj;�QtVICDM Llplloa iagpo i.�pll o�owoi�+laYo Nup "lilliatilit Prom. GENERAL NOTES "ddresic '�+�� ArmRawe nFK d G 91739 consist of the following major components 1a��RUNyI;1 Contact: Jack P. BurdeNe P.E (Equipment areas aro torsed on IMMti/Ial dimension from proposal Al.1a%tal wo 1>oI (>v tOw11�TAY007 10anweaaloowmx+�olo RUMS Project Monogar(809-848-7833) tT drmrkg and engineering studies. Actual egWpmerd dimension and ><No CAK a7 ooMaler eMweMl Max soars MOIE9 AM mlwR 11t configurations may vary.) aevrwnaMa aR 11w orerwsNu<11e roslwmrolr aMosw er me n9' MCC Electkal Room ==M"w", Maeni3 oIs►ora nwomoce ora nae Oculpaney Switdl tear/Conhoi I. Addition of a now s'w pollution control system bag type.filter y Warta tllsnlw SWAORM Me srwA WA%=uola T��eorlstrufan No (173'x 87') oa18iIRI�cIgIL 2. Demotion of an existingair w orwo.aurslslcicK 10i01tNry OIAOi n9 1000 fP pollution control system bag type "mom w+asva MsrmsMlr m ora ova�Ma 1�M°are m�srwl 11e B� area filter( 130' ■ 507 >pinraselpp ' N a loco Building Area; Total new Willing 3 Addition of s new Motor Control Canter to power naw bag type a war N salelm row added 1000 fP filter. (25' x 40) a Pill=m alumn ism w Mr.AR71►%Marr Oea6os Am Sae caanae Flmrlm" Ugwda: NONE 4. Addition of new electrical substation by Southam Ca4famia an Nv A►rttr wales (80'Ediso •s3s P1srnAx Moa AIO+oe s/warwalolo row AaO1grL.IM EL Seiaml= UBC Zone 4. Z-0.40, No-1.05, Nv- 1.30 (00'x 273') 5. Demolition o{an existing electrical substation by Southam SOIL_REPORTS- Wim; cddoff �, Kro ti (7 Edison 8' x 1517 cAu woospasiam woo aRA1MNos cmwom% NL CODES ANn Sa JiM.T[1Nc IIAIIOI 31/lOoe 1.ANUM M"MUM OF 1nm CO61RIICnON(Mss-IAN mato l). . L WOW N BMMM,OOF 2WO MnaK CONS LTIN- FNr INFFRS 1 ANDOM comm m:e6nMx M 1318.45 I.-SOMoO MNIlmiep 10041 mr801Mer 8.wim 8 RANCtyIIDpe()3101"all a 41734 IIQat�O1Mpq�_ji 401-OW Cavy paps- Osrleml Nits(IMS drwwklA L oc ®Plonninq Oeparbrient FNe No.: ORC2008-MI2 40-a Y Dow RM- op and f a► e1 - -air W-0010 Oma plm- Rd r Mme;��Olr WM enovall AutoCA C1e�S 8 aeatSo�a1 3103 Plant-750k Upgrade 2008 Nt1-0012 Mit owrs.n General Notes �" ® Aos@ wMess ovrwllow awwtt w alrr Nrs 4GI-8007 A ARROW Re m N rraL AMERON ARROW PIPE PLANT C3 - �m PARCEL 1 o CMC FO FACILITY ° a o STEEL FACILITY C� cm ®PARALLEL „� ❑ PRODUCTS o FACILITY $$�� am-191-10-am° ° - pvs awe rt ATAMCO o - 3 clAx a u °® I PARCEL 2 a ° cru� !! , TREE ISLAND WIRE MILL -4 "�� SCRW ° A®w'AM* A AMERON mocus 0 " ARROW PIPE PLANT ATAMCO � Can mm AMERON C/O TAMCO ® A PARCEL 3 j QW -maom .$c _ awn N BMWaaaomm TAMCO ROLL MILL - of •• � wio�r oar a _ FERROMET INC. KEY taLL ta► • /0 PACIFIC COAS � RECYCLERS ❑ IST� Q „r,d„t TAMCOm A(�S,t� ocp) JIM SHOPu ® NEW ADDITIONS MELT ._` A ® TO BE DEMOLISHED L&1110116— 11111114; M'�UM 90� "21016 m �Imwft=rG*i m PR AREUANf ENERGY ETIYTANDA INC. PAPI°nning Mp°rtrmM Pu. No.: °pC2ooB-OOSt9 am aDPM LWDttoTtW-PER ALTA SOM peat) +�->•-oom g 0ommma AutoCAD 2008 nt-750k Upgrade 2008 = SitePlan Site Plan tavmm w 4G1-8008 �.-Iz ----------------- ceaUML. TELEPHONE TAMCO 4 SCRAP 0229-121-34—0000 N STORAGE &' �o+r (19.2 ACRES) SAN BERNAFUNO COUWY . so' EASEaIExr CUGYIONGA OOUNtY ®TAM CO '�, °�'� 0229-121-33—000 "" -------------- 0 (30.12 ACRES). r+ KEY 3 ° - s. o. n TO BE DEMOLISHED N- O J \i 00 U N z a MELT SHOP 01Dodounom z PLAN DL Lor TAM CO --.L. I .� o L _ _ • oautw,o s..tv.o a o waas MELT .t.. t�. SHOP ------------ WAREHOWE a EXIST. a FAB SHOP POND cmw BASIN MUNICIPAL WAIER M. sin u1OuO,i, PWwkp D.portmwd nW Na. DMOW-=12 BATCH SON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RR �D' DMENr Qe O ' 229-121-54-00000N0"'00UNTM WAS" ° ' Plant-750k Upgrade 2008 cloblo 6 N Nom Melt Shop e O 1 al Demolition Plan ® 0om wNMe oO,MltBlt t owm w 1. 40' 4G1-8009 ,�---leo. 4 e . N AMERON C/O TAMCO KEY � • 0220-131—t0-0000 " (30.722 ACMES) TO BE DEMOLISHED EE� J t I� Mal r7�9 J �,p r __ Iill W41E11 1a1 U La _ _ w oo • I " II � - ®Manning 0"Am.nt Me No.: ORC2008-00512 A FEW u A wan 121-54-0000 AutoCAD 7008 Plant-750k Upgrade 2008 ISO p�ype N M0Q Roll MIII sc i� 200gys"••'"^� Rall Mil 11,77 1 Demolition Plan m' .00 T�tlOa A➢t@ fiNIMO llpp W 1••„a• �� 4G1-80010 17ALI f i0B-15ii- (NI CASTER EQUIPMEIIT DULL W-V DIA. (NJ CANM (NJ 6'-D'OIA.DUCT (a)2`61 DD.DUCT IE)CASTER (NJ III'i'OTA.DUCT VENT STAR IN)DUST SILO R RAIL LONGING SYSTEM Ira'-IY Pf n r r r N 6Y1' O (EJ[ASTER RUN OUf ARG (NJ LFTURE COOIEq (NJ FANS x-2000 HP (EJ SCRAP LEI (EI ENTRANCE LOADING ENTRANCE In SCRAP SlAfi (EI o00A LOADING ENTRANCE ® SIDIND ON nLTEq eQu1ME1/7 TO MATCH U44TINO MELT SHOP SIDING CN)AIR POLLUTION CONTROL (E)MELT SHOP DESIGN AM COLOR SYSTEM NORTH ELEVATION BAG FILTER EQUIPMENT NORTH ELEVATION NOTE: 1. (E).EXISTING 2. (NJ.NEW ®2. NEW MELT SHOP CANOPY SIDING TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING MELT SHOP ROOFING DESIGN E COLOR A4. SIDING ON FILTER TO MATCH EXISTING MELT.SHOP SIDING DESIGN ANO COLOR S. THE EXACT DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION WILL BE DETERMINE BY ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIER EQUIPMENT TO 0 50 100 ISO 200 300 MEET AIR QUALITY REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, ) III I I I I A Planning DapaTt"'Ont FOR NO.: ORC2008-00512 4° 0 � AutoCAD 2008 Plant-750k Upgrade 2008 aae26c16 IN ETd� Melt Shop Sh.H ft— wd^Id^RA�Ma MN 1I North Elevation TAt10o =IAI gNpWIOUqt!luvi" E O �1 1^�JO� 4G3-8011 A LTOB-i�r - (N)DUST SILO 6 ®(N)AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM RAIL LOADING SYSTEM (N)CANOPY® BAG FILTER EQUIPMENT ®(N)CANOPY (E)CASTER VENT STACK YY00 '+ Ira:•—u• m . 109'-1- n N J 97'-4' (E)DOOR (E)DOOR 79' 173' (N) AIR POLLUTION CONTROL (E) MELT SHOP SYSTEM EAST ELEVATION BAG FILTER EQUIPMENT WEST ELEVATION NOTE: 1. (E)=EXISTING 2. (N)=NEW 0 50 100 150 200 300 ®3. NEW MELT SHOP CANOPY SIDING TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING MELT SHOP ROOFING DESIGN&COLOR ®4. SIDING ON FILTER TO MATCH EXISTING MELT SHOP SIDING DESIGN FManning DapoArtrnt Fib No. WOODS—=12 COLOR 5. THE EXACT DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION WILL BE DETERMINE BY ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIER EQUIPMENT TO �aliO WAS MEET AIR QUALITY REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, '�~ AutoCAD 2008 Plant•750k Upgrade 1008 I olZ, 7 Melt Shop""1°"•.�.w..rwd...�.n.,..� d East A West Elevation taaar 1=115111111 129CFM- t'.ZO' 4G1-8011 A ESOS•ist Poured Concrete Roof TYP. CMU CMU 1 fD ' (lEBM EEO LA I I F N 25 N --0 East Elevation South Elevation MCC Building Note: 1. Exact dimensions will depent on final engineering Switch Gear & Control Systems design and configuration. For Bag Filter Equipment ®2. CMU will be-painted to match exiting buildings L Plank" Doportrrwnt File Mo.: OftC200B =12 AutoCAD 2008 nt-750k Upgrade 2008 aaoaws a MCC-Bag Filter TMIOD Elevations 1 a ..Elevations HL AOM owmmff ror S l t"�4� 4G1-8013 A ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM • (Part I - Initial Study) City or Rancho Cucamonga (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line.) Planning Department (909)477-2750 Thepurpose of this form is to inform the.City of the basic components of the proposed: project so thatthe 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 andthe. development application,. additional information such asi 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:. GENERAL O. • 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: ProjectTltle: TAMCO 2008 New Air Filtering Equipment & Electrical Sub Station Name&Address of project owner(s): TAMCO Steel 12459-B Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Name&Address of developer or project sponsor. TAMCO Steel 12459-B Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 • Contact Person&Address- Jack Burdette Proj . Manager EXHIBITp TER11nitial Study Partl.docPage 1 of 1 o Rev.3/17/04 Item C-123 12459-B Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, CA Name 6 Address of person preparing this form(if different from above): Matthew Jalali V.P. Environmental Department 12459-B Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Telephone Number. 909-899-0660 ex. 7833 & ex. 7803 PROJECT • . . • I & DESCRIPTION: 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 fnm the site from the primary access points that serve the site;and representative views of significant features fid{the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location(describe): TAMCO Site 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers(attach additional sheet if necessary): 0229-121-33-0000; 0229-121-34-0000 'S) Gross Site Area(aclsq. R.): 80.22 a c '6) Net Site Area(total site size minus area of public streets 8 proposed dedications): 7 9.64 ac 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): No plan amendments or zone changes have been done or have. an affect at this time. 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other govemmental I:IPLANNINGIFINALIFORMSICOUNTERIInitial Study Partl.docPage 2 of 10 Rev.3117/04 Item C-124 agencies in order to fully implement the project.- SCAQMD title V permit to construct. SCAQMD title V Air permit to operate. • City of Rancho Cucamonga permit to build. g) 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 site is currently used for billet storage. It is level compacted dirt with a gravel cover in some areas. There are no structures, mature trees, animals, trails, .roads or scenic aspects of any kind. Only a visual inspection was conducted to determine this. A soils report can be produced upon request. 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information(books,published reports and oral history): The site has no'known cultural or historical aspects. The site is and has been used for steel production since the 1950,s. ® I:IPLANNINGIFINALIFORMSICOUNTERIInitial Study Partl.docPage 3 of 10 Rev.3/17/04 Item C-125 11) Describe any noise sources and theirlevels that now affect the site(aircraft,roadway noise,etc.)and how they will affect proposed uses.- The ses.The site is adjacent to a railroad track used for cargo and pasanger trails; A power production plant with multiple steam turbines; a wire mill; a scrap processing plant & a concrete pipe production plant. The proposed use of the site will not affect any conditions at or around the plant. 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.• The parcel in question is owned by TAMCO and currently is used for the process of ferous scrap into various grades of steel billets. When produceing steel in a hot metal furnace it is nessisary to contain any particulat that may become air born at the high temperatures requiered to melt metals. This is currently done on the site using air filtration equipment that is somewhat dated. To meet the future demands at this facility a new air filtration devise must be implemented. The proposed project is to build a foundation to hold the new purchosed air filtration equipment. This equipment is shorter than the existing buildings on the site but taller than 75 feet. Once in operation the equipment will not be occupied by any personnel. The equipment will only be entered when not in operation, and only for maintenance and inspection purposes. The project will be done in one phase. 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.): The surrounding properties are all zoned as heavy industrial. All neighboring sites are for void of plants trees and animals, with the exception of landscape around office buildings and road frontages. The majority of the sites are open land with various types of equipment, many of the sites have structures topping. 100 feet. 14) Will the proposed project change the pattem,scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? The proposed project is indicative of all the surrounding structures, activities and general environment both in scale and character. I:\PLANNINGIFINALIFORMSICOUNTERUnftial Study Partl.docPage 4 of 10 Rev.3/17/04 Item C-126 15) Indicate the type of short-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? Both in short term and long term there will be no affect on noise generation. Any • noise generated is of the type expected in an industrial environment and will have no affect on the adjacent properties, therefore no soundproofing is proposed. •16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: No trees mature or otherwise currently exist on the proposed site. 17) Indicate any bodies of water(including domestic water supplies)into which the site drains: . The site does not drain into any bodies of water. All drainage from the site runs through catchment basins and then into flood control channels. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591. • a. Residential(gaYday) 0 Peak use(gaYDay) 0 b. CommercialAnd. (gaYday/ac) 1863 Peak use(gaYminlac) 1863 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ❑Septic Tank ®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 987-2591. a. Residential(gaYday) b. Commercial/Industrial(gayday/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units. Detached(indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: N/A Attached(indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): N/A • 1:1PLANNINGIFINALWORMSICOUNT ERllnitial Study Partl.docPage 5 of 10 Rev.3/17/04 Item C-127 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents. Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent(per month) $. to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: N/A 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: N/A 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project.' Contact the appropriate School Disbicts as shown in Attachment B.- a. .a. Elementary.- b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s)and major function(s)of commercial, industrial or institutional uses. The function of the proposed air filtration equipment is to prevent air pollution from the melting portion of the of steel making process. 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial,or institutional uses by type: Entire facility: XX,XXX sq. ft. This equipment: XX,XXX sq. ft. 27) Indicate hours of operation: 24 Hours a day/7 Days a week 28) Number of employees: Total. 390 -(Entire Facility) Maximum Shift.' 0 (This is a piece of equipment) Time of Maximum Shin`.. 24 Hours a day/7 Days a week I:XPLANNINGIFINALIFORMSICOUNTER1lnitial Study Partl.docPage 6 of 10 Rev.3117104 Item C-128 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): N/A 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City. N/A '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 air pollution emission sources and levels are granted by the SCAQMD in TAMCO's title V air permit. See attached. 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. City fire safety and CVWD are aware of the project. Final decisions about supply • and service have not yet been reached. 33) in the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include,but are not limited to PCB's;radioactive substances;pesticides and herbicides;fuels,oils,solvents,and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as we#as the dates of use, if known. There are no known discharges of hazardous materials from this site. Some hazardous materials are stored on site, see attachments marked as #33. • I:IPLANNINGIFINALIFORMS\COUNTER\Ini tial Study Partl.docPage 7 of 10 Rev.3/17/04 Item C-129 34) MY 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? 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. The facility stores K061 hazardous waste. This piece of equipment is being put in place to collect air pollution particulates (K061) . See attachments marked. #34 . Attachments marked #33 contain storage information. 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 may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date. GT�� �f Signature: Title: V p_rn rifn4A%[AI--- ,AY.&ek-r 1:IPLANNINGIFINALIFORMSICOUNTERIInitial Study Partl.docPage S of 10 Rev.3/17/04 Item C-130 Ff'.. '.: ';1'ii���`;'""� :Jig':• .C:•• l ',.:s).•`iitc. L 4. .� 'l.� �y}j.�� .1�;j� .a:t=fiE�.. • �t. .. 1 >, 1J: 1 47`9 " oafs / '1.. .■ d E: Q �:i 1 � Q -• e. y Li i. a i .r ti" .��i""""" '''���++++� y.• a O e : • .ss a wf■,» "_ �I _ 11l � - t p.r � At • + tj .:'� .,f 5^Iiy�tL I Ift t oo• h1 1t • :.`,,.. y,.., .C+ _. •'s '�i'<•� it � .r .' ! �' .. .... � •. Bv7 i.. __ X2r; :...i s,� u �y. O1 . ^ 1 } :i:•,oaw':r. f .__:-r______..._.. +t::. '`.J. Ql•• U tE,l. . :, ..• ,.,_7 tE�!t'Ii:J.r[ta.•,.r.�: •1 ter..% .; \t�L �j W r' SS ''t_`,� r •D iI`-i::.,):i pr)[f.y.,ii.-:s(((){':t"J • 1 _ •.j +':.:.::IG: L ,•t±o:r •, *• !• tt :Ishii EEI iI�iF !Ij.•.alt ■ '-'t I��:: 0 Q Q y • :iliiit'�tt�:4 ti: dab,i' .� .' _} ,i-.'. I �is-�i�.• C � .. �}�: : } fyE!_i1E1{r■stF • ! !r F�I i;•• .� �j_ j Q ?Q LL i...i( , 'U. . ; ! fir. It _ t! a (7 U 3 J `.` it 1 ,�: �<•' 'lit .{; ' � ! ( q a• s. = Q :: _ yy i, ! .r N ,, 1 •• , ��■: !' . _ �' 1t. W J Q t '.y ....;�. I�s..W •--'`-'T'n:.,_ � .1.. ,•Y' � �." 'ter __ _ ' F i � _Z L � Z 4 ... - ._.►�_«.ip :(" -;au .*...rt.:. _ .R...:--e----a, ^1-•_a--f: 'i IXC O • i.t :i4 Al i'. sn `'i �• ij�trr!�if r?:s°%C•, it:�a•tr• .r,.i.•.: :�4'�,.'w■• -.i: - .. J O :.!'•' �,•• . • - st• • .r .ry.:+:_yy,,'i({:�:tii}'� " :?t(,t Qt.;. .F;i.a��.i.:.;:.i a.�..A.,..�:;: ;•] r:. Q � :• ■` t. - t'. 1 1 !t,a:l!i;ili ;,'7'. :.7s .T l6..Y .1r� = _-§Pd..t'd�le�lfaS3 ::i• y UOQ. 't.. ;E' i F t,._.. - = :c::: ¢ — N Q :t • i' '1;!'iE' 1;'i{fi;ici'..;ii! .lt. "Ir ti! ::�. !i i :'e' - _ _ :.r Q ?!aea ' a.11ti:.�I I� i• •i.: ,!cf: (t►siti-- - fi =•r - _ Z � U 't • tiii: }L. 1+' .. -.i' ;a•� r•1 i;' st!•±i t: _t� - !it. e.y tlt i'•tf i tt9?4^1( :. . 1•rT ,s. -S_ tY) W. I. t�: � � lif:,...r.t.. ! } ;': 8 .ys,. 3 !i: it _ X = W , � 't .{• tc' .; tt .,.� t. �1, i `�•• It! _:i_.�. .t!; - �}' it..�: � .f„ 's'� t t;se..iIrl; •:is :e .Y i :�E• t} :, . ••a' ,•f:i;;. `•�i[ ( .:t*a i }- ''i �r € ! 1 t.l. it :ia} :i r..si'.efli ,t "r- — t� •i'I,.,f1. '•�i,: :!1' ,_r i't[i• ,.�!�.t.t'4 I i't 'C _ :t`�� 1.t 'i:� !. ff ! •�=a`{, t{,.s: Es_ �% �. U � U •si.t+' g'r .,,r t"':jL'� i�l. � Ii ,+ "J77 r: i�' s i. {?'., !1.t�� i.'I((.lil;.,::i{t.."r[ tet• t c � sf ��,,.+, t s :t:' �iEt l•a�..il{rJ rill !iS til �= ;:ylf•D, t 7:': •1?-( ;s{..tt, •J!':. 1� t- "..iIEI - :! ..t. ::i' }Lt in r� ..., 4� i i� Jtx �1 tr_. t;F!. _ � o t ) :r:.. :t:rr:'. 4� o 3,: .1� r.s1` +t' ! r. Ec :: `y .1 t, / 1' .t,. it: r� _ r •d': :,: li, .tai.. is 11: t. t;: r C1 4. �JIE j ! 1 y � '= ,••., .4 'T�.1 E+. s. , _!'1 .sx:'` se :f E::4;.. ... .. .,. ,.. r y tl 1' .jam' - _ p Zi _E .r � � !.-• s: i�rtr:-:1t. ._e._ fr((�.�.i -i� tFt:t' #flit,.;. ..! I. _t: •:i•.i.. t 'i;s' ❑ N ,'} '! '�}t - S �s �.� y' r• '1 i j� :,r.i:.{ 1` ;�l: i;Itai: (e, y �p� _ t ,�.I3, 3:}; I•: a ;..i.:i;ii: Ss�' a,i_ .a t :t) •'{)`, i ' t' ++ :I..� s- _1,.'1r - '�.l# ii1 i'i r.i{..{ •i;:!)ii.4:.`1^ •}r ..pt!f' .! :trLi :lFtxtFt< 91' ..Iiik}E•-_t 'I,11 t:Ft 1,- 1 .+. = iFils'::.: 1). [.., U 7 j a� .i. Wit, tt e :!D '.t l 1... tt.. =t. I; 7 1 ,'i tai "1'i 3,:-7,t•r: ,;r,. '.i L W ,t. ,lat•!+ y.. i.)�1 r ;i'1t:.yl.,i[� 1 , ,r. +Ira , It.ti ! i!'� !': ! :1 .s :,. 1 �r'�1; _ly: .:W it 1 t, ,} ft,�it i i+ca' i 1!t' •;7s., 1 r: ti�'.IS:;::,; :'• t ill:' !1 ii } -1 /li ,; t' •i: iii )t=)t-1 t,.isiet:: ' ei�; 1 + +�:ti t�l it ` Jt. IF .�. 1 � :� :.• Z )1'+ 7'l,t,.y. �;rt�:;}; E {. 11,;,,::'tt{ `i'.:y I: i :!::.+.: i ,*ii .ii:, 7.!t{[': .t;t : is U tl J 3 i.}s."t, i, / r #r I.r �.��' t�, Itn.: �t t,rE i ti'. �i t Irl , I , i .. r„- ( tr ! .r, 1 t� rt a Tpt a:f� I t lir .E,:'' i, }i {{�� +4 - �tl ..1`' :I; i;a :S i■ i, ,. .� F? ;1!i 'i{ �;•r"ri::Vl ii1 i;1!{:ilii�)• /y �" `!�!i }"ya •! 1 'l �{' 1 fa, t i'�t!'si .Q •i '';is -:;f:=i,';.,:•ie':t!tell•. .,,. ,['s t: iii• .!:4 'ilr,, '1'.i '!$ .t:es1J- t�l ..i,r-: t it. ..t:`et!:• :t), �) a... r - 'ai''1 7 - •� '�• ''lF�g.r!' :,i �i .�`'rEi.,!'i1'; '!.Li!-%i"'•t- :l'E't=_ (', 'E :1") i:. F °t: •r It, # i.lt' St4;i .:�I� ;!, �. 1 1:::i; i'i :1 i •.,j!it,.t '1 ! O i?a,i:t i {E�ri. t t. } ss :sr S,l.. t,'•1 i..r:,,. , .-r _ _ }Y.FF r' t • h r:.:; i. ':rtl tf :ttra t • •" � S,� ,t— ::1:iJ2:it •.t. # s `' li ,r..EI,i !I;i; ,1 y,'(� i,;�aFr! .,E.:1? ! ii;y:Ig41„t, t "u. %r;1. 'i�••:t:_:r: ! sr` '4: t[`"5I rsF it;! ..Ila ':1' 4. •i.: =I`r }; .K:.... t,...1,4- !i!'::i,�l. jt' _ { t c1C•>ef3 .t�. !}•: ; u ,�'�:.Et - + i:T !. ,FS, :(, ,tt ;;. ..• 1 i 1lT:t ! ! t.!` •i; .lar!If! t 1r - itr •tffi>`I- S'= ::i•i:. J.i:J:�;r` 'i i _:,ls.l,ll y::. .f,' ,+:•:;,};;!. a.t-• r 12 r9 -+t- .i!i:r�t 4 ''i .:::•' .t ,.,...::., .:.;. t ��ii`r•3 7�� 't' t ,,"sr, ....:•.,.,.::•;:•:• .1.. !.. i� (yy !i:•¢:, i'�!:.r:: L+il ! �_�; r�r y.st_ ril:r f Et,).�_ l:it ...- ::k:l,,:.�.. tt.:.. I t ,t _I.,.i r. 1i !!tEl.� � _(.. (.,.1 .i'• i ,i. .rt 1 t:Fl r: ,�[• .t f- :s,T. ry•iFt:�•�•t+4 :t. ,( :fiPl:i., rI=. �. :.Te � t ` .. art{��t:: _ .t!D 1`y s ,, :s.e> ` tt• .�.F°:'._.r: >i Jiie, t JEe:.,: i�'F'J' '.._.::r.. I.. ..•ti .. .<. I !: rya 7 \ +'i' �ti1�1;,. yii[ :iI"xii j ..31. 1: :r f•,..,,, G'::{' Nil! ,n I� .!.'I, 'ft�.{},., ii:ff:l• :..;�;:i.e?., :t'' _; t •t; la'- .,i;: i r. + ;,ttt, 9,i •..,i,. lEt .� ,r tEi;° .,, J •„-y 'a 1'It.'I:31iti� Iq' �'i. S ,i;ci, :1}, r';t' :/'. .3 ,i!1 ,r•fl„ �•.. IJ .!- - .1 •� '1' a '1lII'F' at,r 1t..ts:t el,':a+. .tilt; ,,,sal ;1!i,er:...S:SI` ,s:: l')s 'ti L �. .i'a•;'1 := '11 N:E: _...•:11;._<..scd.Y::-s4 t �i n,' ('t..4.a i1 i :. .., :._Jl ... '�f:; ). tit .y:.i:. •:t' E,.-. - � .1€:ti::, :yf•..r;.ltji;j -rs.:i::. .s... .r.. co It:.i ..1.!, :r.' :(r.. , �le. 'I.j, •y F i.t i.!a ,t.,i ( 1 t� t:�i� i. 1. '•:i t {� �, ��.•. ;•'sat _ .:r: .yl t:._.:!;: •(.i�i.:.it�[ '[^::t_r j, :t- • li�t i :1,. ,a� I,�,af!t=. t.,,i,p � IFt,s, fit 7 'i!..• 'i ):.' - Illi l.• to c T•'' t f:iit,,.t i ti'it t11:Ei t:,:= P, ri:.. J.. }I1i [! y.,1:7s;;, t, :�-{, i ,Fiti.;r.Tr,• .,,_ '.tlf+!i �;.1 �rI!atr� eir -i l�t., 1 O !T !sEs..•;' Y! t I i�. t i r i s :> +t.:t:x:Efi_;=.t,s t.. Ili 11 i({i:, s }t d: !{E .rL�l {js `' l l. 7s E 1} l Its. Eif: 1 !i+• „: I,tspF:: .si_. <,Ft!-;,�..i'[•! :r .t�r::r,i j ,+ is •!1:.:, l'.1.i:Er .};I 1 'rrl1 ( t'4iii:s` ,I _ 't[ya/rt; `si. •:fG:l::.it' 'lift:.'.'-ir ;�!i 11!:; -i I !•:t' i.'' l, 1 + `• 3. 1�•'.r,t) tt[? t}t)it•;�y try tt •;!,�;, t Fi( E is3i1 0 :i •S�' ,t tirli ;C, •l [si �.E:`t s- ,`�7i t..'rf':: ■ (y _ sr 'Iriti.,ii•:,..a 4 E i,;, :r �i•;} •• t!. s y •!a :3'!i -a - lt,:.'� .'t' t-'i :`.:Itflt:r.'!!-' - .il., '�`'{ai n )' !• :t `i �+ l.i'i;. .�, .iyc_ t'!t.¢,tt',F..ti: •r.t•i 1t tI!'Et" - ... :-<rl:•�::::::1. :€i,., c... RIM,..>�:'7i. it •,a r+#)• 1):?!`:s :1 •?Il�s t;t, .at '! t� =:a'4:i Is. -, llC%iJi- :)1C4[ i .1.. i::;++I7,t =?c!1a r, t' '.IEc,:.3, iit't' y !...tett! t:tiltYtF';.}` yrt.;, �:g r•tT• - - lt,:: ,,t•� j t1; f 1.,.N .t +`i�y �r + `1 I'[ c:tr !T• ! :r tt[J„ 1: ,l;;li'� rirl i t::::t U }; o Ila Fs t¢�. 'R l• t.. (, :,t l:'ti?ifj i-•,-.: :t � , �) 't,.�r 14 •^�• �.i ..� .r :t i• i i•lrr �: •it.tl .iti:+1lf IJ.[,y. tE. 'i W •t tt } 1. - a�.� �( �� t: t'( ?.t i.�,::r ty4 J!■ :ta .t. ,.Id�I��'i '.tl ii+]`:ii.f.�: %l` .4.. 1� _ .r : 1i ;Fi' e13S!1'i t'il}}� �J �. E: =�l�c�: �tY-•.t 'letiti..i ■ 'Ir,s Iir ' tt (yy �'l. it�.'1' t. !l• r+t t i'• .W t �Y I�, it,i! .I7 {�i}tt. 1j :tut._ a;•,, . 1- .![i {I:,t:! �.: �tai': !: 1J 1• e,,;,, a5i:.;PitiLji i7' • -'jl [rt .:n t1 r.i €F:. "4Tt<a t (tett' Jit .i • - S '9i I .ij� t e•"s=:,::+ .ir I tt >_ . t, _ 4 G ! e(� a F '�; _: �, >,, �,_ _ � ..i'.!!� !� i�rr.�al.�tt.,=•' i •>a,;.{{t Nil �;I I) srii !i r,!( I jj�it � � :�(,:t1.i :�4r{i, •�:,I,I�:ri.i :IJJa;�.ii l�i jri il: � � tyt!.,.ri'41 ■ :. t..: . E' :ee.+lt� ;Y: l.. .1 :• ,r.�r:ty c} •!'t.1*:i7;sh i;;..: iI66u:..,.4t.afit It'7.a....F• t �E t )1 i�r i:EtiEJ?• et.riitF;T: 5t'l: t. _ 1 1 1 lilt.+r;,:-� '!.i,.. : i, r,.; •.{; }: /r•)ii.:+las!t:t:;l}ii., til: ii..Ei11 iJ at1:' t.l a... ti. i! v:.,t.) iE:J,' t. t,. _4 .ii.rt •it;r {} ,#,: "i! (�:F { ?[. •i.! '!" 1. gill f? ttE t'Fl;=)lll;i}nt`ir:,r` •tom:--•C,• .i1.,i�:.,5�]..: iii .flj'' Mill. J� �{! .1I'ttE i [ tt 3 1 4t rti (t+p i i r�• a• /"'!j ::ii F'rii na '• r, 't�c'f ' ,tiK. yt F; -t {; , ri'+ a �ab.:i�§.. ••.1 lI ; ,t' rZ:t ::t:'tE.ite�•..,,...,JG'E' `!''tli1 .y y�,: :� E t tlt ;y• .'.�. �►`!I �� .1{! :a t it� •sttt t )t{�'{ i �s j(:.:;J .I t :t•.•.iif, [; r �-t,f t Ei;t ti',i �i�' t —p '-:y� ;•� c! ` !1?.1 ii!( " 'li �:a •F Iii, i'! =�t rj!!1{tti}1'[i;°}.rt ! r)'I•[!'� �tt!�!1 t :i_ii.;l -jr -J7'f•iy' I:i. - „E, a..)j.r: S,.li, ttii r!1.,t: - '.VIE t�; tt •;i.�.,s I .0 _lit t Et ����: �' :i,} � t! ,.),�• .� J :rt%zit!!l:t1^ !l{J t}i r;, ;, iJE '.tt- i t.SiJ 1,: !i;F'tfysisir i3 tl t�1.t:FF:� �it• fl�l tI�'�iE. y:E'21 t'•' �!-t` iII r r: i'. O ai ■ 1r,, .� a{ t. ,�.: � (:I_Ili "tl::r:!f't;;! iiil�:�'iT i `��r ((j i'.�� rIw i t;,Y:; I lr�l n r' 'Ilii'. ^t:._,li _I; I'.• }.•, .F;!I� � iP��. `1!ilt:► Ei•�4�!•!r7 =I �-�iP9: i . � a r 1' !,;1r }.:I. }IJ�%.it•�!ir: r�t.._y�,tttl` ft F 1.)1.,. t i } '!(t.i;ii:'}t':lJ i`it :j• '!E':'t:.;li :t:' :a Y't', { ' }• i I SI! :i;l:i i.rtt.e a: al”• 1 i'jyil 1 ,!.t!' S{.tJy�!.� �'i"1 °li':i!?tElaj i l't y. t •it. r. � 1:.. :r1,. ,Itryl:-yii'. t .,r itlrlr''ll;,t ,fi15 f u. .•It'ia 4f;i: -i Er e.I �1[1 l' ;) {_ Ry{ `lit;r ! 'Eli' tt^'tf F s t I }` siii: 11 i1 r'I! •33 I' � '!'1 ..(Ii,' it±E i'!t({tF4, k ;fF ilsNir.i f^:u' I !•1a:: - :t:t a :!2131 S3HoOs. Ieta ':e t.ii (.Er ..;:,..Ei• ,I..t. 4� ' 1 I iI )•.?.ti trtii M. t•I! as!'- I; N)Jr U11111,11111 3 s # I ,:11.f1•e,.•:•:..: ! r;+:a:t ,!f t ; i::��;•' f .•::.;.F . 1 t tlttitt �:f { j#:.3 s• :t1 '•1 .". i..,. 1:; i ,:,=.ti!•:.... :'::t �.:,. .,.1 f 1j.; !::;< l ,. , i i�:'r!r'i:� .E{ s 'r .(I ��t _:1:•a Y.. 't::ir!.. _�:i::.•Js t. ,!.t;.. } .:... r.l,,..'_ .. rt:::•,6 t.!`t t..,.!° t..a)i .:. .,.1(•:'211f}i Il'E'a 4,t(�f: :! :s �s ,i,. ]1i��sP.rf' .t ..y �:t , s:)ie;•:::!. .I `-"tt. .;Ci. tri' •i,�r { ''!t; 1ti •I ': - :�/ttrtJ ::' t;: •.!r ir .!.aa t,i:7 sir t�yy il' ■t .Wi � .� Eft: it a t�:.`• 5... 6• i �4 t ::t.... :� ••i:'rl:.. ;< i4''�i .iY. ,t'li}� .� %t;'ii'.-� ':tt:i.. { ttt �F.t'• ;, s ,if=. � .�P.1' N}}kd - ..f... ±1'-rl:, ,r,•,,G � t� •�:: ; '!;t •!1. � _,� :E : at ._:rT... �:;r•e.. :. as Fi' :l'+ t, t' - ..'!` 1 !!t E, 'f:-f:t 3, it s :1,la _!la:s .•{ 'y .. (, r ••It: .. L rr� sr_,i'= =1:"', !Y:i"'i:i:!. :'•::`.:;!'a 'tt = ! r,_t1 ,1.J. Il• Itlr tt :l :V� :ti•[ .3� !It i;. ►' 't1• •s.:y.: to i.siii `S" "1� _t. • rr ::�', ! _, .t. y• 1' � 1 r. _ - r�f f{:•:J'7 ,! , { 1 a :E.}'t � I1ti..t• .1i __', is M, t:F+i s.: V!...1=' it .,yi .t[i••t;. t, ��' � ty :s�'}r - '�1,{" ti'� EI. ';!i` tl t:.+.S,. !ii }: � fii7 •%Iii;, ,�.i! {! 9. - i!f _ (t;' t.. ;.,.1 ,r•,:<, ( I r=t i. <. i �.1., [I:ct E%�f -tt if E It. .,1 �.n Ir .� 1' � }:: ;••gl:- it/,!y�i r tt{i r: ,i-. •>J J '+hi. :}�' - alt .. ,• 1` 1 }; Itf t,t,.. ( Ix E' t -!: t s it ! ri 1•, , ,lt J'Lt' : { : ,! .r.�t! •� �,:a,!ft'-. •. • I :,•�,: ;s; iRri ! y ,(..:: •�Lt' f r �a1 .;.} I J J ;t..r�;,t ..�.lJ .r�ti J� ^ •4?� .ii RIM y aF; J Il i l r I�{1'i.:rs t,g].f r.t; ':tj,'IJic'i le�' i �Y yr `Jis.. ,•� __ .�:i ..f,, ,r, ':,,:, F!4[. r:,tl i• t' I.7 6 •''y { s. I i'.;.i t+ yF,t :Ft`•:pp s Rt "t?•r..,.,: :.=.v._i. : �G<tI,�.JJ:, llt7 'r: ip �.. itt =t:t o iv •t:.r ri: r� ;�i' �!'a �::'E:t- .), 2tr.. 99 77 i•`!p ;�t�i ':r. 'a' r•) --!i't• %iz- Ir._. y s._ E,i. 't;,..;iyr•` _ r.• _ ! Ji:.. .tN. .it ii;.r•,r. :F_+., r..r ��. <; aN � - '�:",' t :t i !, t,• -1 I.t;; 3Ers ii ;t[i� .;Ai stip ,+a.tr t .ta I• _![{il ;,1� :1!, t ,i t:!Y{i 1`:' - E 1 t, .[�,:i,;l;:.,_.:.jltlyjj �[ O' t ; :i _r •-l��.....I. fS N� _ iklrt.tf w )tt;! :'za:3. JJ.�.,a.t_P, ,t s %t:ii: 4 %./ t. 4b 'N '•t - (::: nr:l_ •tr i:i' 'tti:I t i, ll t�J' 't�r •s•-:jtiiis ii;:s::l J •i F,' II .t; .. „> ...: '>. �,t: {.;,1:• ;tlt.. - r- t t' lit I. :iS'.,• '! ae. - .Il :tt",t: :i'•.,,; :.i,.t;tt1tt!!13+ t 1, 1, g• ;t:',4-,. ,�t l:�' t 't'a t 1,l.Ir •iii Y.- - s t:t •iF i `} ''il ca t:;'}•.. 4.t•.s!?. 'ti:','lA: tl a ; 1; ,.,, :i,r=•)12,:- i iy ,I'• .i !t •i' r i ilr. + ! t '.] •� - ,ai .t :i:' I'D t Z .� .! :1 I: t1• '``i ...:_ •:.. •. •. . _ pl..: i),:a,t: ,} t i:r;'x 1.•• t'i1 t� r' 'fptI.,tllt;;�, .i{..� ttt.fi itiji•!i -F1-•r „F:?T; p. r;� �t,-?t'• 4 i .;z. .} r%;':IFn: •li. .,',tit.!' i'T "1.tr dr iii t�.�. •,�: s.3, it ll•1.. f I!f':1 t: f•a :r•s,r •t•:T' - 'f'4!F t.. !F °tt•.t., �� t r. .�' iA.,':. ;i'`;;.: lr.. 1,::•i r�'`'i 7!t. !'::{ P t ,. ..�.. e.,rl! r. ' td t;a :..e,'i.t'Ji A:E�i: e.]•: �� tt � ';t.,,t.a;.:�q;iv{i,t s '}i"1•,i. ,.:1 .�ii IFall •tsll 'tit ,tl`11 s,}i,t! til ir.i:•iii t !t,, i ;!. le;r,t�,{< ,.qt._x ,+ 'L. i .1 i eJ!1- tia. 1.!' !` i .-i�t11'!:• 3i r ti •I`.' i'iEt,i: 'iii' J '+ +:::;:':.:+:..).... •, tl-(: I. t:s ttt'r,( f rt..t -tit:1 5 � Ott t 1 1 tyi! !� t r - _f:I,rt iii t tiji.....I::Et: ,.`t;. _ r - .1.: i.+�t•,I.1,.# a:it.! : t t` e•��i•,• :I:If'! t,,a1 i•.�st '(1•tif,:�!`: r.. �: •:;;i::;`;' :r,:..J•:.:�'_ , .i;.: ; ... I.'l!.:......! ,:4rt � !til=tji,.,i�E.rt.I 'i;1i;� t ,;r, .1. ... ,FI: ..1. rl• .�. _ it r �t- i. 4' t4 1_ I(3',l.jlr t! "t - /1.1 t':-:{�'1:: :r'. .•�' !�;i}E�i}ty,:r,: -t.,r Lf4Ii:'l:i Et! '`' i� U .-%l:iitl ii: .✓:l:1E EI.•:Fi:=.(. :!il t1 'fit`{t:°__3-'i...�-�•._-.aY•:: � ... City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND I. Project File: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 2. Related Files: None. 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2008-00512 - TAMCO STEEL - JACK BURDETTE - A request to demolish and replace two industrial buildings: First, a 6,500 square foot bag house air filtering system will be demolished and replaced with a 16,781 square foot bag house air filtering system. Second, an 11,778 square foot electrical substation building will be demolished to allow for the construction of a 21,840 square foot electrical substation building. This will allow for an increase of production at the existing TAMCO Steel Plant on approximately 80 acres of land in Subarea 15 of the Industrial Specific Plan in the Heavy Industrial (HI) Development District, located at 12459-B Arrow Route - APN: 0229-121-35. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: TAMCO Steel Jack Burdette 12459-B Arrow Route • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 S. General Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial S. Zoning: Heavy Industrial (HI) Sub Area 15 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located on the south side of Arrow Route between the Interstate 15 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue, bordered on all sides by industrial uses (see attached USGS Quad Sheet and aerial photo). The zoning designations for the properties surrounding.the site are also Heavy Industrial (HI). 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Steven Fowler, Assistant Planner (909)477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g, permits financing approval, participation agreement): South Coast Air Quality Management District Permit. The applicant applied for the permit, which was granted on October 9, 2008. • Item C-132 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 2 GLOSSARY-The following abbreviations are used in this report: CVWD-Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR- Environmental Impact Report FEIR -Final 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 URBEMIS7G -Urban Emissions Model 7G ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or"Less Than-Significant-Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (✓)Aesthetics (✓)Agricultural Resources (✓)Air Quality ( ) Biological Resources (✓)Cultural Resources (✓) Geology& Soils ( ) Hazards &Waste Materials- (✓) Hydrology&Water Quality () Land Use&Planning ( ) Mineral Resources (✓) Noise () Population &Housing () Public Services () Recreation ()Transportation/Traffic () Utilities& Service Systems () Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (✓) 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. 9 Prepared By: Date: /Z 401 A�L p Reviewed By: Date: vb Item C-133 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 3 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact I aet EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial affect 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 Exhibit III-15. b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ® c) The site is located on the south side of Arrow Route between Etiwanda Avenue and the Interstate 15 Freeway, and is characterized by industrial development surrounding the site. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. Design review is required prior to approval. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) The project would increase the number of streetlights and security lighting used in the immediate vicinity. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on site plans which require review for consistency with City standards that require shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant. ra) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ( ) () V) () 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 ( ) ( ) () V) Williamson Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ( ) ( ) () V) which, due to their location or nature, could result in • conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Item C-134 Initial Study for . City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 4 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wtn Than Significant NGtlgation Significant No Imp= Inco orated Irno= I act Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located on the south side of Arrow Route between Etiwanda Avenue and Interstate 15 and is characterized by industrial development surrounding the site. There are approximately. 1,300 acres of Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of which about one-third is either developed or committed to development according to General Plan Table IV-2. The major concentrations of designated farmlands are located in the southern and eastern portions of our City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Further, two-thirds of the designated farmlands 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 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 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 FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. C) The site is located on the south side of Arrow Route between Etiwanda Avenue and the Interstate 15 Freeway, and is characterized by industrial development surrounding the site. The nearest agricultural site is a remnant grape vine patch that is approximately 100 feet northwest of the entrance of the project site. This site is no longer a viable agricultural use since an application to develop the site has been submitted. The nearest agricultural use would be either a Christmas tree farm or strawberry patch, which would be over a mile away. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 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? Item C-135 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 5 Less Than ® Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No I act Inco rated I aet Impact Comments: a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6), continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions 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 FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) 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 constFuction 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. They then transfer to a different site where the process begins again. Therefore,the emissions associated with construction activities are not new to the Rancho Cucamonga area and would not violate an air quality standard or worsen the existing air quality in the region. Nevertheless,fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on a project-specific basis. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: • 1) All construction equipment-shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly 'serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)as well as City Planning staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall complywith 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. Item C-136 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 6 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potedfally With Than Significant Mitigation Significant, No Irroact Incorporated Iffloact Irnpact • 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 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(PM1a) 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 PMjo 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. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, short-term construction air quality emissions would remain significant as noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6). Based upon the Urban Emissions Model 7G (URBEMIS7G) model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General-Plan FEIR, Nitrogen Oxides (No,), Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), and Fine Particulate Matter (PM,(I) would exceed SCAOMD thresholds for significance; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less-than-significant. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. In the long-term, development consistent with the General Plan would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General Plan FEIR; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot bemitigated on a project basis to a level less-than-significant. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 10) 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). Item C-137 ' J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 7 • Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially yy�Significant Less Than. Significant Mitigation' Significant No 1 act Ineo orated 1 act I aC1 11) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 12) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 13) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, the General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in operational emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. C) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6) continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of • pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is located more than 1/3 mile from the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) Typically, the use proposed can create objectionable odors without the use of filtering devices. One part of the project is to install a baghouse filtering system to reduce the emissions from the site. The project has been reviewed by the SCAQMD on October 9,2008, and obtained permission to install the baghouse that is being installed as part of the application. The SCAQMD is requiring annual testing of the performance of the equipment to determine if the equipment will operate in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of the SCAQMD over a steady number of years. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Item C-138 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 8 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources. Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated lqwct Impact 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 in an area developed with industrial uses. The site has been previously disrupted during construction of infrastructure and surrounding developments. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR,the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat exists on-site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. No wetland habitat is present on-site. As a result, project impfementa on would have no impact on these resources. d) The majority of the surrounding area has been or is being developed, thereby disrupting any wildlife corridors that may have existed. No adverse impacts are.anticipated. Item C-139 J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 9 Less Than ® Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially � Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irmact Inco rated Impact Impact e) There are no heritage trees on the project site; therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with any local ordinance. f) The project site is not located within a conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Exhibit IV-4. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. S. 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 () V) ( ) ( ) 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 () ( ) ( ) V) outside of formal 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). There will be no impact. b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project site; however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential archaeological resources. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 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 CEOA guidelines. Item C-140 1 ` Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 10 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lncoWr2md Impact Invact Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. C) The General Plan FOR (Section 5.11) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to 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 General Plan Exhibit V-2; 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 the summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. d) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site has already been disrupted by construction of infrastructure and surrounding developments. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No evidence is in place to suggest the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State regulations is required for all development, no mitigation Item C-141 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 11 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco rated Impact I act is required in the unlikely event human remains are discovered on-site. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as () () ( ) (✓) 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 Exhibit V-1, and Section 5.1 of the General Plan FEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within 4.33 miles southwest of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 5 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 to 7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto Fault, capable of producing up to MH, 7.5 earthquakes, is approximately 7 miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas Fault, capable of up to M, 8.2 earthquakes, is approximately 12 miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong groundshaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less-than-significant. b) The proposed project will require the excavation, stockpiling, and/or movement of on-site • soils. The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion Item C-142 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 12 Less Than Significant. Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco rated Imoact Irnpact 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 SCAOMD and RWOCB)daily to reduce PM,g emissions, in accordance with SCAOMD Rule 403. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PMIO emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers(approved by SCAOMO and RWOCS)shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. C) The General Plan FOR (Section 5.1) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from the aquifer. The project would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The site is not within a geotechnical hazardous area or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FEIR Figure 5.1-2. Soil types on-site consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand Soil according to General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The. majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types on-site consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand Soil according to General Plan Exhibit V-3 and General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. These soils are typically Tujunga Loamy Sand. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. 7. 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? Item C-143 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 13 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Iffloact I ct d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of () ( ) () V) 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: a) The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full-service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive that any other in the state. The City is in the process of developing an Emergency Operations Plan to meet State and Federal requirements. The City has approved a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which has received State and Federal approvals. 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 to house an air filtration system for the existing melt shop and an Edison substation for an existing rolling mill at the location. There are no potential impacts anticipated to the closest residential uses and elementary schools at this time. b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full-service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the state. The 'City is in the process of developing an Emergency Operations Plan to meet State and Federal requirements. The City has approved a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which has received State and Federal approvals. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. The proposed industrial buildings are to be constructed to house an air filtration system for the existing melt shop and an Edison substation for an existing rolling mill at the location. There are no potential impacts anticipated to the closest residential uses and elementary schools. • Item C-144 J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 14 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Sotefic� M watt Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) There are no schools located within 1/4 mile of the project site. The project site is located within 2.1 miles of the nearest existing or proposed school. The proposed industrial buildings are to be constructed to house an air filtration system for the existing melt shop and an Edison substation for an existing rolling mill at the location. There no potential impacts anticipated to the closest residential.uses and elementary schools. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. . Recent site inspection did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 4 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. 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. g) The City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho.Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from a wind-driven fire in the,Urban Wildland Interface area found in the northern part of the City according to the Fire District Strategic Plan 2000-2005; however, the proposed project site is not located within a high fire hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-7. S. 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? Item C-145 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 15 Less Than • Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No I act Inco rated I aq I act 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 ( ) () () V) 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? () () () V) 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 Construction Permit. The General Construction 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) that would 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. 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 a SWPPP. To • comply with the NPDES, the construction contractor of the project has prepared a SWPPP during construction activities. The applicant has submitted a SWPPP, prepared by Accord Item C-146 . Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 16 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pwith Than Signifiiagnificanntt With SignifleantNo InVact Inco rated Impact . Impact Engineering, Incorporated, June 2007, 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 would be 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 of 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. Post-Construction Operational: 5) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the SWPPP, prepared by Accord Engineering, Incorporated, June 2007, 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 Item C-147 J J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 . Page 17 Lest Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially lally With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Irmact Impact a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) According to CVWD, 43 percent of the City's water is currently provided from groundwater in the Cucamonga and Chino Basins. CVWD has adopted a master plan that estimates demand needs until the year 2030. 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 Exhibit IV-2. The development of the site will require the grading of the site and excavation; however, would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 288 to 470 feet below the ground surface. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs and is a significant impact; however, CVWD has plans to meet this increased need through the construction of future water facilities. 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 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. The project design includes landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent erosion. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 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. e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface.water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. f) Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a.concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is for new development or significant redevelopment; therefore, is required to comply with the NPDES to minimize water pollution. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a WOMP, including a project description and • identifying 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 Item C-148 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 18 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irmact Incorporated Impact I structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 2) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (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. g) No housing units are proposed with this project. No adverse impacts are expected. h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood.hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. i) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to convey 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 Exhibit V-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. 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. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project.- a) roject.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 site is located on the south side of Arrow Route between Etiwanda Avenue and the Interstate 15 Freeway and is characterized by the industrial development surrounding the site. This project will be of similar design and size to surrounding industrial development Item C-149 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 19 • Lau Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No I act Inco orated I act Im act all around the site. The project will become a part of the larger community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. .b) The project site land use designation is Heavy Industrial. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated. C) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of'plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known minTthe resource that would be of value to the region and 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 IV-1 and Table IV-1; therefore, there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-1, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site;therefore, there is no impact. 11. 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 t 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? Item C-150 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 20 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Fctentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () ( ) () (✓) would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The project site is not within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Exhibit V-13 at build-out. No adverse impact expected. b) The proposed industrial buildings are to be constructed to house an air filtration system for the existing melt shop and an Edison substation for an existing rolling mill at the location. The City's Development Code requires that all industrial uses be conducted within an enclosed building; hence, no adverse operational impact to nearby commercial uses is expected. However, at the time of occupancy, the.Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. As such, no impacts are anticipated. C) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. The proposed activities will not significantly increase traffic; hence, are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. d) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.7) 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 or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-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. 3) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in the first phase. The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site construction equipment; however, do not address the potential impacts because of the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall .then be required: 4) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed Item C-151 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 21 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco orated Im 1_.0 100 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. . e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 4 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 1/2 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project.• a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either () ( ) () V) directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. .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 impacts are anticipated. b) The project site contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. C) The project site is vacant land. No impacts are anticipated. 13. 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? ( ) ( ) () V) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) () V) C) Schools? • d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? ( ) �) () (�) Item C-152 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 22 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources. Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irnpact Incorporated I act Irmact Comments: a) The site, located on the south side of Arrow Route between Etiwanda Avenue and the Interstate 15 Freeway, would be served by a fire station located approximately 1.1 mile 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 so no impacts to fire services will occur. No impacts are anticipated. b) Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. C) The site is in a developed area currently served by the Etiwanda School District School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The project will be required to pay school fees as prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of building permits. No impacts are anticipated. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is located approximately 2 mile 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. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay park development fees. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels-of-service (LOS), 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 FEIR (Section 5.9.9), the projected increase in library space under the General Plan-will not meet the projected demand. The General Plan FEIR identified the cumulative impact on library services 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 EIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Since the adoption of the General Plan, the City built a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which is in excess of the projected need of 15,500 square feet at build-out of the City. 14. 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 ( ) () ( ) (✓j require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Item C-153 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 23 • less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irmact Incorporated Impact Invact Comments: a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. •The nearest park is located 2 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. b) See a) response above. 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of () ( ) () (✓) service standard 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 results 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) Result in inadequate parking capacity? () ( ) ( ) (✓) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs () ( ) ( ) (✓) supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a) Implementation of the proposed project will generate 701.6 vehicle trips daily. The proposed project includes the development of industrial buildings to house an air filtration system for the existing melt shop and an Edison substation for an existing rolling mill at the location. The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that each acre will generate 8.77 trips daily. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.5), 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 FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume, or congestion at intersections. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards. In • addition, the City has established a Transportation Development Fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway Item C-154 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 24 Less Than Significant less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation .Significant No Irnpact Incorporated IrMact I act improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. No impacts are anticipated. b) The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that each acre will generate 250 two-way peak hour trips daily. In November 2004, San Bernardino County voters passed the Measure I extension which requires local jurisdictions to impose appropriate fees on development for their fair 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 permits. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. The project will not negatively impact the LOS standards on adjacent'arterials. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. No impacts are anticipated. C) The project site is located approximately 4 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards because of a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. e) . The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and will, therefore, not create an inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated. f) The project design has adequate parking in compliance with standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and will, therefore, not create an inadequate parking capacity. No impacts are anticipated. g) The project design includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.). 16. 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? Item C-155 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 25 Less Than • Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No —Impact Incorporated Impact I aet 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-4 treatment plant located within Rancho • Cucamonga. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. c) All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project is served by the CVWD water system. There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. No impacts are anticipated. f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to'handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. Item C-156 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 26 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact 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 AIR 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 17. 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 Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ( ) () ( ) (✓) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means-that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will () () () (✓) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resources as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan.Exhibit IV-3. Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the site. 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 2001 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 aggregate resources, prime farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, and aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian-friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. Item C-157 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008-00512 Page 27 Less Than ® Significant Lean Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially win, Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im act C) Development of the site under the proposed land use change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less-than-significant levels. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR 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): (✓) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (✓) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115,certified January 4, 1989) (✓) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (✓) South Coast Air Quality Management, Facility Permit to Operate (October 9,2008) (✓) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (June 2007) Item C-158 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2008700512 Page 28 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 Signat Date: r Print Name and Title: rT0 A1A.1. Item C-159 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.: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 Public Review Period Closes: January 14, 2009 Project Name: Project Applicant: Tamco Steel -Jack Burdette Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 12459-B Arrow Route - APN: 0229-121-35. Project Description: A request to demolish and replace two industrial buildings: First, a 6,500 square foot bag house air filtering system will be demolished and replaced with a 16,781 square foot bag house air filtering system. ' Second, an 11,778 square foot electrical substation building will be demolished to allow for the construction of a 21,840 square foot electrical substation building. This will allow for an increase of production at the existing TAMCO Steel Plant on approximately 80 acres of land in Subarea 15 of the Industrial Specific Plan in the Heavy Industrial (HI) Development District. 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 MitigatedNegative 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 proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. • January 14, 2009 Date of Determination Adopted By Item C-160 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING O PROGRAM Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 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. I. 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/Engineering Department) 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • Item C-161 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DRC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) 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. _ 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 after written 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 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. Item C-162 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 Initial Study Prepared by: Steve Fowler Applicant: TAMCO Steel i Date: December 10 2008 011119MMUSHIN Vol A HU MOOD Air Quality. ;: �;,.. a' : ;,.. ;f• t. :.,'��. t}�L• +6•_: ;'7'yrl,,�• r�Y..1. •i;•'+.i' (F .�,. 'h ii't'' J,r;w ,. All construction equipment shall be •,, •J `• � ' - •' • maintained in good PD C Review of plans' A/C - operating condition so as to reduce operational 2/4 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. m Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the PD/BO C 3 developer shall submit construction plans to the City Review of plans C 2 n denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide wW 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 performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Review of plans A/C" 2/4 Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards BO PBnoted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. Review of plans A/C 2 All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD BORules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall Review of plans A/C 2/4 include the following provisions: 1 of 8 Mitigation Measures No. Responsible • - Monitoring • of Verified Sanctions for Verificationfor Monitoring -_Frequency - Date /Initials NOn-Compliance ■ Reestablish ground cover on the construction site BO C through seeding and watering. Review of plans A/C 2/4 • Pave or apply gravel to annyon-sitehaul roads. BO CReview of plans A/C2/4 Phase grading to prevent te susceptibility of large BO C areas to erosion over extended periods of time. Review of plans A/C 2/4 Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of BO C Review of plans A/C ::j exposed excavated soil during'and after the and of 2/4 work periods. Dispose of surplus excavated material in BO C Review of plans A accordance with local ordinances and use sound 4 engineering practices. ■ Sweep streets according to a schedule established BO C During A by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public 4 3 thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. construction Timing may vary depending upon time of year of t construction. Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e., '30 C During A wind speeds exceeding 25 mph)in accordance with 4 SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. construction Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils BO C During q haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other .4 suitable means. Construction The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During A soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and 4 SMO Regional Water Quality Control Board[RWQCB])daily construction to reduce Fine Particulate Matter (PM1o) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO C During A RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction. 4 construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean BO C Review of plans A/C alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 4 )f 8 The construction contractor shall ensure that BO C construction-grading plans include a statement that work Review of plans A/C 2/4 crews will shut off equipment when not in use. All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs BO C requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged Review of plans A 4 periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate PD C preferential parking for vanpools. Review of plans A/C 2/3 :: All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or PD more employees shall be required to post both bus and C Review of plans D 2/3 Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. All industrial and,commercial site tenants with 50 or PD more employees shall be required to configure their C Review of plans D 2/3 operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to R the extent reasonably feasible. Cultural Res ourp s •' • - 'rT',;, =!_-t: ,-i'._ c:3�. z-. °�(..•..-is:.._".$-,r,.t�. l '.�"�: ti ..L`' .:�'' Fencountered historic archaeological resources-are' f' 'L ,. , : . before or during grading,the developer will fied archaeologist to monitor construction take appropriate measures to protector preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: ■ Enact interim measures to protect undesignated PD/BO C sites from demolition or significant modification Review of report A/D 3/4 without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require PD/BO C Review of report A/D 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 td/-4- archaeological heritage of the area. 3of8 • • • -• • • • • Propose mitigation measures and recommend PD/BO C l conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project Review of report A/D 3/4 effects on significant; important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEOA guidelines. 7 . • Prepare a technical resources management report, PD C Review of report A/D documenting the . inventory, evaluation, and 3/4 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. If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal PD B fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the Review of report A/D 4 developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor 3 construction activities, to take appropriate measures to n protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist i 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 g Review of report 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. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared Bo B/C or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities Review of report A/D 4 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 transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). :)f 8 • .. QUO . . • Submit the summary report to the City of Rancho PD D • Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a Review of reportID 3 copy to the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. r7a yand.Soils ' Vis' �ite shall be r t Bated with water or other BO bilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and CDuring q 4B)daily to reduce PM,o emissions,in accordance construction AQMD Rule 403.ge public streets shall be swept according to a BOle established by the City to reduce PM,o C During A 4 ns associated with vehicle tracking of soil construction . Timing may vary depending upon the time of construction. 3 Grading operations shall be suspended when wind BO r) speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions C During A 4 from the site during such episodes. construction a� �4 Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction C During q 4 areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to construction reduce PMrd o emissions. Hydrology a , 9y nd:Water..Q.4a(ity' .`v: �: j�,.!y,. rthi;._ ♦_:i .'r T•:.'�•h•:•.. a:.,e.:••.L+'• :•S' '!s Y 4.. .:;y..y1v., !.,l�.i s• 1•:i:: Y.,:'I�a=f: is - { issuance of grading permits,the permit applicantBO bmit to the Building Official for approval of a B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ally identifying Best Management Practices that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants onstruction activities entering the storm drain to the maximum extent practical. 5of8 'i i Mitigation - - Implementing , e TimingResponsible Monitoring of •e of -e Sanctions for for MonitoringVerificationVerification0. te/Initials Non-Compliance An erosion control plan shall be prepared, Included in 77 B/C/D Review of plans A/C the grading plan, and implemented for the proposed 2/4 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. sandbags construction, temporary berms such as BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4gs or gravel dikes must be used to prevent 3 discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there n is rainfall or other runoff. e1 During construction, to remove pollutants, street BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 00 cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and 2/4 after the use of water trucks to control dust In order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C the SWPPP, prepared by Accord Engineering, 2/4 Incorporated, June 2007, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping plans shall include provisions for BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C controlling and minimizing the use of 2/4 fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage andistable 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. of 8 Mitigation Measures No.I Responsible of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verif ication •. - Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 submit to the City Engineer for approval of a WOMP, including a project description and identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WOMP 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, the BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 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 3 obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's n Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City I Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General M Construction Permit. ko Noise r 'd. T..; �..• a.: 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, construction including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 7 of 8 Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the BO - - standards specified in Development Code Section C During A TM74 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The construction 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 early PD C as possible in the first phase. During A A =% construction rl Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the PO/BO C During A I hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, 4!7 cincluding Saturday, or at any time on Sunday ora Construction national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site),then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Respo.nslble Pgrsort; � ....a:: . CDD-Community Development Director or designee A-With Each New Development F A-On-site ,'a `= { PD-Planning Director or designee n site Inspection 1 -Withhold Recordation of Final Map g B-Prior To Construction B-Other Agency Permit/ royal CE-City Engineer or designee APp 2-Withhold Grading or Building Permit C-Throughout Construction C-Plan Check BO-Building Official or designee D-On Completion D_ 3-Withhold Certificate of Occupancy . Separate Submittal(Reports/Studies/Pfans) 4-Stop Work Order rFIC O-Police Captain or designee E-Operating -Fire Chief or designee 5-Retain Deposit or Bonds ti-Revoke CUP 7-Citation )f 8 RESOLUTION NO. 09-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2008-00512, A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AND REPLACE TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS: FIRST, A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT BAG HOUSE AIR FILTERING SYSTEM WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH A 16,781 SQUARE FOOT BAG HOUSE AIR FILTERING SYSTEM. SECOND, AN 11,778 . SQUARE FOOT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION BUILDING WILL BE DEMOLISHED TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A . 21,840 -SQUARE FOOT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION BUILDING. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE OF PRODUCTION AT THE EXISTING TAMCO STEEL PLANT IN SUBAREA 15, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 11459-B ARROW ROUTE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0229-121-35. A. Recitals. 1. Jack Burdette on behalf of Tamco Steel filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of January 2009, 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 January 14, 2009, including written and oral staff reports, to with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at 12459-B Arrow Route on the south side of Arrow Route between the 1-15 Freeway and Etiwanda Boulevard with a street frontage of approximately 345 feet and an average lot depth of 1,210 feet and which is presently improved with 98,032 square feet of manufacturing space, 22,009 square feet of office space, and 70,049 square feet of warehousing space; and b. The properties surrounding the site are all within Subarea 15, the Heavy Industrial (HI) District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The parcels on the north side of Arrow Route are within Subarea 8, the General Industrial Development District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The properties in both subareas contain large parcels with industrial uses; and 0 EXHIBIT P Item C-171 PLANNING COMMISSION ASOLUTION NO. 09-01 ORC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 2 C. The proposed use, 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 new bag house will meet the South Coast Air Quality Management standards and be monitored by them to assure that the emission limits are not exceeded; and d. The project design meets or exceeds the Development Code development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, and building heights with this application. The Heavy Industrial Development District allows massive outdoor structures in an unscreened manner. This project has proposed a row of trees on the south and west property lines to screen or mitigate the visual impact of the.large buildings from the 1-15 Freeway and the surrounding properties; and e. The design and exterior materials of the new buildings match the existing materials of corrugated metal for the bag house filter building and painted'CMU block for the substation. The designs also match the old buildings, and these old building will be revitalized by painting and repairing them, a goal of the General Plan. 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 use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed.use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not.be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 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: (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 Item C-172 PLANNING COMMISSION tfESOLUTION NO. 09-01 DRC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 3 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 Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) This approval is for the site plan, .exterior building design, and landscaping for the TAMCO Steel expansion project at the subject site. ® Plans submitted for plan check shall conform with the plans approved by the Design Review Committee on October 18, 2008, and final Planning Commission approval on January 14, 2009. 2) No exterior changes to the design of the project, including exterior materials, shall be permitted without prior City review and approval. 3) The dense trees to be planted along the west and south property lines shall be maintained to aid in screening the melt shop and yard area. 4) Specimen size trees(24-inch box or larger)shall be planted along the west and south property lines in the areas as indicated on the approved plans to promote the early establishment of mature plantings. Severe wind conditions require all trees to be staked or guy wires used per City standards. Engineering Department 1) Three properties on the south side of Arrow Route, including this applicant, have been in contact with the Traffic Engineer regarding the installation of a traffic signal at the location of their current shared driveway. His direction to them was that the City would fund a signal if they reconstructed their shared driveway to align with a cul-de-sac proposed on the north side of Arrow Route by Omnitrans (DRC2007-00440). Item C-173 ' PLANNING COMMISSION AESOLUTION NO. 09-01 ORC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 4 a) All parties on the south and north sides need to reach an agreement on the location. b) The south leg of the new intersection shall be improved as a 44-foot wide street-type driveway entrance, in lieu of a City standard drive approach. c) Driveway entrance plans were submitted to the Engineering Services Department in February 2008, and plan check comments with redlined plans were returned on April 7, 2008. This plan check shall resume with the resubmission of corrected plans and the redlines. d) Easements for public traffic signal equipment maintenance will need to be provided on the private south leg of the new intersection. e) Confirm the existence of or provide reciprocal access easements from the shared driveway for all properties on the south side of Arrow Route. 2) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50 percent of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills 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. 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 manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the developer shall submit Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. Item C-174 I PLANNING COMMISSION 4ESOLUTION NO. 09-01 J ORC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK'BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 5 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occur as a ® result of hauling. Timing may vary dependingupon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e.,wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB)) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that Construction Grading Plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 10) 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). Item C-175 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-01 DRC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK.BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 6 . 11) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 12) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 13) 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. 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: Item C-176 PLANNING COMMISSION 4SOLUTION NO. 09-01 DRC2008-00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 7 • • 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 a summary report to the 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 RWQCB)daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule. 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 PM,o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. Hydrology 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the 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, 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 of ground ® disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a Item C-177 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-01 DRC2008-00512 -TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 8 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, temporaryberms 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) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)prepared by Accord Engineering, Incorporated (June, 2007) 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 WQMP, including a project description and identifying 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) 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 Number)shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Item C-178 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-01 DRC2008-00512 —TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 9 ® Noise 1) Construction or grading on weekdays shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., 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 17.02.120-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. 3) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in the first phase. 4) Haul truck deliveries on weekdays shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. 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. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman ATTEST: Ja s R. Troyer, AICP, Secret ry 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 by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January 2009, by the following vote-to-wit: Item C-179 PLANNING COMMISSION KSOLUTION NO. 09-01 DRC2008=00512—TAMCO STEEL (JACK BURDETTE) January 14, 2009 Page 10 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERI NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item C-180 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2008-00512 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: TAMCO STEEL-JACK BURDETTE LOCATION: 12459-B ARROW ROUTE -APN: 0229-121-35 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 1. 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. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 09-01, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to — the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption -$50 b) Notice of Determination - $50 C) Mitigated Negative Declaration- $2,043.00 X d) Environmental Impact Report-$2,818.25 •SC-12-08 1 I:\PLANNINGTINALTLNGCOMM\2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2008-00512StdCond 1-14.doc Item C-181 Project No.DRC2008-00512 Completion Date B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit 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. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building,wall, support column,or other obstruction,the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. E. 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. All trees planted within this industrial project shall be specimen size trees-24-inch box or larger. 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 REVIEWS) F. SEE ATTACHED APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED 2 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2008-00512StdCond 1-14.doc Item C-182 — ar COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL STANDARD CONDITIONS NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW (S) • A. General Requirements: 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; C. Floor Plan, d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of.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 Division Project Number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, CUP, DRC, etc.) 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. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Division. B. 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., DRC2003-00110 and SUBTPM16125). 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 Division 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, Item C-183 i and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit 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. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public counter). C. New Structures: 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive construction. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 3. Provide draft stops in attic areas. 4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC. 5. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC. 6. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. D. Grading: 1. 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. 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 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. Item C-184 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS January 6, 2009 Tamco Steel Conditional Use Permit "CUP" Air Filtering (New Bag House) & New Electrical Substation 12459-B Arrow Route DRC2008-00512 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT The RCFPD Procedures & Standards which are referenced in this document can be access on the web at http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonaa ca.us/fire/index.htm under the Fire Safety Division & Fire Construction Services section. Since the "Fire Protection Plan" (FPP) submitted for review encompasses equipment and buildings also proposed in a separate "Minor Development Review" (MDR) these Standard Conditions apply to both projects. Fire Protection improvements apply to the MDR as described here in. FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply Upgrades in accordance to the approved Alternative Method and Fire Protection Plan must be completed before the substation or roll mill alterations and additions begin. All requirements by CVWD must be performed in accordance with TAMCO's agreement with the water district. FSC-2 Fire Flow The required fire flow for this site based on the proposed roll mill alterations is 4000 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This requirement is in accordance with approved the Alternative Method. This Fire Flow requirement must be met before the roll mill facility is altered or the substation is constructed. FSC-3 Prerequisite for Submittal of the Overhead Automatic Fire Sprinkler and/or Standpipe Systems. Prior to submitting plans for an overhead automatic fire sprinkler system or standpipe systems, the applicant shall submit plans, specifications and calculations for the underground supply piping. Approval of the.underground supply piping system must be obtained prior to submitting the overhead fire sprinkler or stand pipe systems' plans. FSC-4 Requirements for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Any addition to the administration'building will require that this entire structure be retrofitted with automatic fire sprinklers. Modification to the roll mill building will require the installation of a stand pipe system in lieu of an overhead system and compliance to all the conditions of the approved alternative method. Item C-185 FSC-5 Fire Alarm System & Sprinkler Monitoring The 2007 California Building & Fire Codes, Ordinance FD46, and the approved alternative method require that the standpipe system, any overhead fire sprinkler installed and all underground or above ground control valves to be monitoring by "Central Station" monitoring fire alarm system. A manual and/or automatic fire alarm system fire may also be required based on the use and/or occupancy of the buildings: Plan check approval and building permits are required prior to the installation of a fire alarm or a fire suppression system's monitoring alarm. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in accordance with the RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard 9-3. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access Fire District access roadways include public and private roads, and/or drive aisles designated by RCFPD. Please reference the RCFPD Fire Department Access Roadways Standard. The Fire lane improvements shall begin, with the installation of any new equipment and/or buildings. All the fire lane improvements shall be substantially complete before the start of the roll mill alterations and/or the construction of the substation. Access Walkways: Hard surface access walkways shall be provided from the fire apparatus access road.to all required building exterior openings. Access Doorways: doorway shall be accessible without the use of a ladder and shall be provided as per the approved plans of any building constructed. Access door shall be labeled in accordance to the RCFPD Standard 5-5. Commercial/Industrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be in accordance with RCFPD Standard 5-4. Fire Lane Identification: Curb and pavement markings, signage and/orany other approved alternative method shall identify the fire lanes. A site plan illustrating the proposed fire lane delineation method that meets the minimum requirements of the Fire District shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan check approval. Roof Access: There shall be a means of fire department access from the exterior walls of the buildings and equipment platforms on to the roofs of all industrial structures with roofs or platforms less than 75' above the level of the fire access road in accordance to the RCFPD Standard 5-6. FSC-7 The Fire Fighting Agent F-500 and its related equipment must be purchased, prepared for use by TAMCO.and accepted by RCFPD before the plan check documents for the new substation and roll mill facility are submitted for plan check. FSC-8 Occupancy and Hazard Control Permits Listed are those Fire Code permits commonly associated with the business operations and/or building construction. Plan check submittal is required with the permit application. Field inspection and compliance to the regulations are required prior to permit issuance. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, Item-186 which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions that may be hazardous to life or property. • Aerosol Products • • Magnesium Working • Application of Flammable Finishes • Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Operation • Automobile Wrecking Yards • Battery Systems • Organic Coating • Candles and open flames in public assemblies • Ovens • Cellulose Nitrate • Powder Coating • Compressed Gases • Cryogenics • Dry Cleaning Plants • Radioactive Materials • Dust-Producing Processes and Operations • 9 Systems Refrigeration S 9 y ms • Explosive or Blasting Agents • Repair Garages • Flammable and Combustible Liquids • Scrap Handling Operations • Spraying or Dipping Operations • Hazardous Materials • Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures • Liquefied Petroleum Gases • Welding and Cutting Operations • LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings FSC-9 Hazardous Materials— Submittal to the County of San Bernardino The San Bernardino County Fire Department shall review your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards. Contact the San Bernardino County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-4631 for forms and Item e-187 assistance. The County Fire Department is the CaVEPA Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. If the facility is a NEW business, a Certificate of Occupancy issued by Building & Safety will not be finalized until the San Bernardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan. California Government Code, Section 65850.2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting specific hazardous materials disclosure requirements. A Risk Management Program (RMP) may also be required if regulation substances are to be used or stored at the new facility. 2. Any business that operates on rented or leased property which is required to submit a Plan is also required to submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates and has complied with the provisions. The tenant must provide a copy of the Plan to the property owner within five (5) working days, if requested by the owner. FSC-10 Hazardous Materials - Submittal to Fire Construction Services A hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS) and a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) shall be submitted and approved prior to plan check submittal for construction of the roll mill. It is required that TAMCO and its Fire Protection Engineer commence the preparation of these required documents at this time. RCFPD will assess fees to the facility for expired or existing renewable fire code permits until the complete study is prepared, reviewed and approved: Storage, use and dispensing of hazardous materials must be in accordance with the California Building and Fire codes, the National Fire Code, RCFPD Ordinance FD46 and/or an approved alternate method by RCFPD. FSC-11 Alternate Method Application Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal have approved. a request for an alternate method; All the provisions of the alternative method physically possible before the expansion of the roll mill must be completed and approved including the hazardous materials submittals to the San Bernardino County Fire Department and FCS-RCFPD. All other provisions of the alternative method must be completed before the final approval of the roll mill is granted and the roll mill operations resume. It will be taken into consideration that a small part of the required improvements per the approved Fire Protection Plan can not be physically completed until after the new roll mill is set in operation and the old roll mill is demolished. A feasible time line will be established at that time by the Fire Marshal to complete all the improvements. Item t-188 RESOLUTION NO. 14-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00992, A REQUEST TO MODIFY CUP DRC2008-00512 TO INCLUDE: 1) REPLACING A PROPOSED 16,781 SQUAREFOOT BAGHOUSE AIR FILTERING SYSTEM WITH A 11,853 SQUARE FOOT BAGHOUSE AIR FILTERING SYSTEM, 2) REPLACING A PROPOSED 11,778 SQUARE FOOT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION BUILDING WITH A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION BUILDING, 3) ENCLOSING THE EXISTING MELT SHOP CUPOLA WITHIN A PROPOSED 6,375 SQUARE FOOT NEW MELT SHOP CANOPY, AND 4) CONSTRUCTING A 6,090 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE MELT SHOP BUILDING, ON 80 ACRES AT THE EXISTING GERDAU STEEL PLANT IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 12459-B ARROW ROUTE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0229-131-19. A. Recitals. 1. MIG Hogle-Ireland filed an application on behalf of Gerdau Steel for Conditional Use Permit No. DRC2013-00992, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." • 2. On the 10th day of December 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. 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 December 10, 2014, 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 12459-B Arrow Route on the south side of Arrow Route between the 1-15 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of approximately 345 feet and an average lot depth of 1,210 feet and which is presently improved with 98,032 square feet of manufacturing space, 22,009 square feet of office space, and 70,049 square feet of warehousing space; and Item C-189 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-54 DRC2013-00992— MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 2 b. The properties to the south, east,and west of the.project site are within the Heavy Industrial (HI) District and the properties to the north (on the north side of Arrow Route) are within the General Industrial (GI) District; and C. The proposed use, 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. As conditioned, the new Baghouse will meet the South Coast Air Quality Management standards and be monitored by them to assure that the emission limits are not exceeded; and d. The proposed project meets or exceeds all Development Code standards, except building height. The Development Code permits building heights in over 75'feet subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The existing Melt Shop cupola is 120 feet high, the proposed Melt Shop Canopy is 135 feet high, and the proposed Baghouse is 78 feet high. These buildings are in the southerly portion of the project site, are set back approximately 700 feet south of Arrow.Route, and the slight increase in height will not represent a significant change in the visual environment on the project site. e. The project design and exterior building materials will match the existing materials of the Baghouse, substation, and Melt Shop. The Baghouse and Melt Shop additions . and canopy will be constructed of rolled structural steel sections, the.siding and roofing is sheet metal, which are similar materials to the existing building. The electrical substation will be constructed of fabricated steel frames and cold formed steel sections with metal siding and roofing. The Melt Shop, Baghouse, and substation buildings will be painted "Signal White"on the siding and "Ultramarine Blue" on the upper siding and trim. The canopy and ducting will be painted "Shale Gray" (a high temperature resistant paint). 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 use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not.be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental 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 in January 2009 in connection with the City's approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512. Pursuant to Item C-190 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-54 DRC2013-00992— MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL.) December 10, 2014 Page 3 • 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 indicates 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 Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00992, 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 .project includes: 1) replacing a proposed 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot Baghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing a proposed 11,778 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3) enclosing the existing Melt Shop cupola within a proposed 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy, and 4) constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building, the additional square footage does not amount to a major change and would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the MND. As documented in the Addendum, the project will not have any significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, will 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. As such, the. ® proposed Conditional Use Permit application does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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 the Conditional Use Permit DRC2014- 00992 and an Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient. 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 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman • ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary Item C-191 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-54 DRC2013-00992= MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 4 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 10th day of December 2014, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item C-192 Conditions of Approval rro CHO ONGA Community Development Department ect#: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 Project Name: Location: 12459 ARROW RTE- 022913119-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification CEQA Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- A. ROJECT.A. Planning Demrtment 1. All Standard Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and environmental mitigations contained in Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 09-01 for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 shall apply. 2. Approval is for a modification to Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 to include: 1) replacing a proposed 16,781 square foot baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot baghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing a proposed 11,778 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3) demolishing the existing Melt Shop cupola and constructing a 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy; and 4) constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building, and other minor alterations. 3. The Melt Shop, Baghouse, and substation buildings shall be painted "Signal White" on the siding and "Ultramarine Blue" on the upper siding and trim. The canopy and ducting shall be a high 0temperature resistant "Shale Gray". 4. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply . with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. 5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own .expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 6. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 14-**, Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 09-01, Standard Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheets are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 7. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extensionhasbeen granted. B. Engineering Services Department •1. Dedicate an additional 20 feet along the approximately 320 feet of Arrow Route fronting APN 229-121-34, bringing the total to 50 feet(measured from the street centerline). Printed:12/3/2014 www.CityofRC.us Item C-193 Project#: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 Project Name: Location: 12459 ARROW RTE-022913119-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification CEQA Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: B. Engineering Services Department 2. Arrow Route frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Major Arterial' standards including but not limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt pavement, curvilinear sidewalk, street trees and streetlights. a. Remove and replace the existing asphalt pavement south of the Arrow Route centerline. Widen as needed so that curb face is 36 feet south of said centerline. Join existing improvements to the east and transition to the existing pavement width west of the west property line to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Provide 9500 Lumen HPSV-equivalent LED streetlights. c. Protect, repair or provide signing and striping as.required. d. The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 3. Parkway shall slope at 2 percent from the top of curb to the right-of-way. 4. Drive approach shall conform to Standard Drawing 101, Type C, including the minimum 35-foot width at the right-of-way. 5. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows: Gingko biloba "Fairmount" (common name Maidenhair Tree), 15-gallon, planted 20-feet on center in 5-foot minimum grow spaces. The Engineering Services Department reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. The completed Street Tree Legend box and construction notes (below) 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)." 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. 4. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 6. Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of grading permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete, signed by the City Engineer, and an improvement agreement and bonds executed by the developer, prior to building permit issuance. www.cityofRc.us Printed:12/3/2014 Page 2 of 6 Item C-194 J Project#: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 Project Name: Location: 12459 ARROW RTE-022913119-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification CEQA Review •ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. B. Enaineerina Services Department 7. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for 66 kV electrical) on the project side of Arrow Route shall be undergrounded from the first pole off site east of the east project boundary to the first pole off site _ west of the west project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may ' request a reimbursement agreement to recover up to one-half the actual costs for undergrounding. We collected $79,431.00 from DRC2004-01290 on the north side of Arrow Route for this segment and a portion of the adjacent property to the west. 8. 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 Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. 9. Applicant shall pay development impact fees prior to the issuance of a building permit as follows: a. Transportation: $5,401 per 1,000 square feet of additional industrial buildings. b. General City Drainage: Not Applicable until the total area of additions and new structures constructed after the effective date of the original ordinance (1979) exceeds fifty percent of the area •of existing structures on the parcel on the effective date of the original ordinance, as codified in Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code. 10: Relocate 66 kV power poles for Arrow Route frontage improvements. If Southern California Edison (SCE) indicates relocation is not possible, or would recommend it not being done at this time, the developer shall provide a cash contribution in lieu of construction for that portion of the Arrow Route improvements that cannot be completed. Said contribution in lieu of construction shall include the future power pole relocation costs. C. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit 1. Obtain approval of the RCFPD for the FPP, when approval from the planning department and RCFPD is received please submit construction plans to B&S for plan review D. Building and Safety Services Department 1. Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet"signature are required prior to plan check.submittal. • us Printed:12/3/2014 www.CityofRC. Page 3 W6 Item C-195 Project#: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 Project Name: Location: 12459 ARROW RTE-022913119-0000 Project Type` Conditional Use Permit Modification CEQA Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: D. Building and Safety Services Department 2. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/ Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Framing Plan; d. 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; e. Plumbing and Sewer . Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, f. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc.) clearly identified on the all plans g. Structural Calculations(2 sets) h. Mechanical plans. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation. coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Services Department. E. Grading Section 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review.' 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate Grading and Drainage' Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will. generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 6. The .applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. www.cityofRc.us Printed:12/3/2014 Page 4 of 6 Item C-196 • Project#: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 Project Name: Location: 12459 ARROW RTE-022913119-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification CEQA Review 0 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. E. Grading Section 7. 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. 8. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm Water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 11. All slopes shall be a minimum 246ot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 12. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 13. The maximum parking stall gradient is 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be •constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 15. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 16. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; 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. 17. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management pian (WQMP) best . management practices • (BMP)devices. www.QtyofRC.us Printed:12/3/2014 Page 5 of 6 Item C-197 Project#: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 Project Name: Location: 12459 ARROW RTE-022913119-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification CEQA Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT., E. Grad'una Section 18. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 19. 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. 20. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number(WDID). 21. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent 22. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide to Building and Safety Services Director a copy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Memorandum of Agreement for Storm Water Quality Management Plan for review prior to recordation of the document. The Memorandum of Agreement for Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit. www.CityofRC.us Printed:12/3/2014 Page 6 of 6 Item C-198 STAFF REPORT ® PLANN NG DEPAKfAIE Vr Date: December 10, 2014 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director By: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT19932 -ANDREASEN ENGINEERING -A request to subdivide a parcel of about 82,328 square feet*(1.89 acres) that is currently developed with one(1)commercial building with a floor area of about 32,000 square feet into twenty- one (21) units for condominium purposes in the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay District(HADD), on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Sixth Street, located at 9220 Haven Avenue; APN: 0209-262-19. Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP 99-53. On July 12, 2000, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit 99-53. Per the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15162, no further environmental review is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends"approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19932 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: North - Office building; Industrial Park (IP), Haven Avenue Overlay District (HADD) South - Restaurant and Service Station; Industrial Park (IP), Haven Avenue Overlay District (HADD) East - Office building and Vacant; Industrial Park (IP), Haven Avenue Overlay District (HADD) West - Industrial building; Industrial Park (IP) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park, Haven Avenue Office Overlay North - Industrial Park, Haven Avenue Office Overlay South - Industrial Park, Haven Avenue Office Overlay East - Industrial Park, Haven Avenue Office Overlay West - Industrial Park C. Site Characteristics: The project site has an overall area of approximately 82,328 square feet (1.89 acres) that is currently improved with one (1) three-story 32,000 square foot commercial office building located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Sixth Street, at 9220 Haven Avenue. The overall dimensions of the project site are approximately 264 feet (east to west) by approximately 331 feet (north to south) (Exhibit B). The property to the north and east contain • Item D-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT19932 —ANDREASEN ENGINEERING December 10, 2014 Page 2 office buildings,the property to the south contains a restaurant and service station,and the property to the west contains an industrial building. The zoning of the properties to the north, south, east, and west are all Industrial Park (IP) District, while the properties to the north, south and east, are also within the Haven Avenue Overlay District(HADD). ANALYSIS: A. Background: On July 12, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 99- 53 providing for the development of a 4.acre project site, which included the development of two separate parcels(Exhibit A). The northerly parcel provided for the development of the three-story 32,000 square foot office building, and the southerly parcel provided for the development of a 4,450 square foot service station/convenience center(ARCO/Subway)and a 3,500 square foot restaurant(El Ranchero). The two parcels are separately owned; however, reciprocal ingress and egress rights were provided to these two parcels through the original-subdivision of Parcel Map 7731. B. General: The applicant,Andresen Engineering, proposes to subdivide the parcel with the office building into twenty-one (21) units for condominium purposes (Exhibit,B). The applicant has not yet prepared plans determining the interior layout of the condominium units; however, the intent is to provide each office unit for individual ownership, and the common areas (i.e., hallways, stairways, bathrooms, elevator, building exterior, etc.) under common ownership (Exhibit B, Note 9). The project site is fully developed with the building, parking lot, landscaping, and full street improvements; no new construction or project site modifications are proposed. To minimize the potential for problems regarding site maintenance, use, or access, a condition of approval has been included requiring the submittal to the City applicable recorded documentation that ensures the continuation of agreements and easements, etc., to maintain mutual use, reciprocal access, parking, and maintenance as well as new Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) to govern the condominium ownership of Parcel 1 of Tentative Tract Map 19932. C. Technical and Design Review Committees: As the project is only for the creation of individual units for condominium purposes on a fully developed commercial property and additional development of the site (i.e., building, grading, or public improvements) is not proposed, staff determined that review by the Committees was not necessary. D. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") . and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 12, 2000 in connection with the City's approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-53. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more Item D-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT19932 —ANDREASEN ENGINEERING December 10, 2014 Page 3 ® significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No comments have been received. Respectfully submitted, U�f`.�VF/ Candyce Burnett Planning Director CB:TG/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Map Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19932 Resolution of Approval • • Item D-3 T-77. _7,77 •^t rt• t5IWIP LUit 1.4 !t jA qt 'WA v T* Pl. v. • 4A U. CLI. BdB iw' Z U 0- CL Z> Ski < 0 ly 12 z <UJ =) Z < t, z I=J3 ti 0- =1 9 z 0 4M. nt �z C. 0 C; U Um Z 0� Via NOW! z 9 Li J� 3NMrff < 'IL < 1�— __I - LK 0 0 fi L5 LLJ > 02 C, 0 o oe LU 0 z 0UQ - A,. 4fi 4 c. i IY 13 .30 t LU SHEET I OF 1 SHEETS TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19932 . IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP NO.7731,AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 84 PAGES 94 • AND 95 OF PARCEL MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES (FOR 21 CONDOMINIUM UNITS) ANDREASEN ENGINEERING.INC. ERIC ANDREASEN L.S.6256 NOVEMBER 2014 I I I FOOTWLt BLVD I 1 1 ARROW ROUT[ I1 I :� PR JE T SITE . I URGENT CARE NEOICAL OFFICES 1 I 1 I ( 1 T— ....... Ya1P ........... r VICINITY MAP r 1. ...... _... ...... ...... / 1 .........i:7:y ..... I. ,� !:. • W t. i 11 ...... 1 ..'�.:.� :�_..... ..... TAI IZ y.... j l i !> �t__:: .... , 1 1 ...........: ti........... ..........:: ';--..... ..... ... OFFICE 1 + ; .. .._... BUILDING 1 0 40 ;'........ ,;'k ` rl 0157RIEUMN G17APHIC SCALE 1ti40' 1 `� r x ....:.�: .?� • , 0..T....... g1 ;i ............ OWNER: • r .:.:.: ...... ...... 1 6112 LYNWOODONM L.L.C. 1 is .........:1 .........P'I'tai..... 1 t :Z ENCWA&CA 92024 is ...... Lu AM.N1519RI plpy x262 ........:1:r.__...... �: � _...... .... (::i� I> TELE N0.217-622- ...... r...._ ..�:I: .... r;! ...... ......_.. . ........ 1.:............ ...........' ..... j ;..... ,......,. .. ± _ NGIN �._. I ._^.•.I J F... .. ..... ......... ANDREASEN ENCREE16N0 : E ER 1: 1 i. , is ��g0g 1RTE:�15E560 NORTH PARK � •.1 ELF NO. r -423-1595 1 NOTES: -r.1 II , :...__ � � .... ...... .'r--...... y;..'�"( 1. PROPERTY ADDRESS.922D HAVEN AVENUE T...._..... ....I:t .........................._. ry ..I, 1 _ 1 2. A.P.N.0209-262-19-0-000 JJ, 1 1 S. PARC ..... ::. .............' N0.1 CONTAMS 1.69ACRES NET ............ j .....�. I RETAIL 4• ALL ON-SITE TREES TO Rom S ALL SURROUNDING ZOP)INDUSTRIAL . NNC $ r ............ ....., 7. ALL SURROUNDITC PROPISM(WRHMI A PORTION U � ^i PMN 6' )AIDU5IPML PARK 100 FEET ARE OF LOTS 1.A AND 6 OF SATO PARCEL MAP NO.7771 \] 8. ALL PROPERTIES IN THIS SRE MUST HAVE A RECIPNOCJL ACREEMENT FOR THE MNNTENANCE AND USE OF FlRE PROIFPIION WATER SUPPLY AND FOC DEPARDW ACCESS AND ROAD MNNfUUNCE -_-_-_ 9. THE MMUAL OFFICE SUITES WNL BE PRIVATELY Me.ALL SIXTH STREET------ -- OTHER AREAS(I.E..au&Doc El1TERNIIL HALLWAYS.STNRIFAY9. ELEVATORS.BATHROOMS,—AREAS)WILL BE COMMONLY OWNED.AND THERE WILL BE NO-E%CWSNE USE'AREAS OUTSIDE . OF THE DUU NO. UTILITY PROVIDERS: ! IMaW ELECWTTY SOUTHERN CAUFT!RM EDISON (800)655-4555 RANCHO CUCAARMrA MUNICIPAL UTIIRY (909)919-2612 EASEMENT LEGEND WATCASER a>Dw�V ACAUFORMA ER DISTRICT (909)427-2221 WATER (909)967-2591 —`--moi CABLE N TIME WARNER (688)692-2257 O A 14'WIDE ANDEASEMNCID CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONol1 iNDIGTEa PROPERTY BOUNDARY UNE CHARTER COMWJNCATIONS FOR SIDEWALK06,AAND INCIOEMAL PURPOSES, 730 O.R. (BB6)499-BOBO 1-5-2018.AS INSIRUIIEM N0.1006-0008770 O.R. ———— 6IDCA1E5 EASEMENT LINE KREON (BDD)VERRdI mOICAlES PAW TREE REFUSE SURRIEC DISPOSAL (909)987-3717 • EXHIBIT B IHDICA7ES VARIOUS TYPES OF TREES . I6.7014-10:71:Lkm --- Item D-5 RESOLUTION NO. 14-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, . CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP • SUBTT19932, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP 7731 WHICH IS 82,328 SQUARE FEET(1.89 ACRES)AND CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH ONE (1) COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A FLOOR AREA OF ABOUT 32,000 SQUARE FEET INTO PARCEL 1 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19932 WITH TWENTY-ONE (21) UNITS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) DISTRICT AND HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT (HAOD), ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, NORTH OF SIXTH STREET, LOCATED AT 9220 HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0209-262-19. A. Recitals. 1. Andresen Engineering filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19932, 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 10th day of December 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of • the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. 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 December 10, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a single parcel developed with a commercial office building located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Sixth Street, at 9220 Haven Avenue; and, b. The property has an overall area of approximately 82,328 square feet (1.89 acres) and overall dimensions of the project site are approximately 264 feet (east to west) by approximately 331 feet (north to south); and, C. The three-story office building has a floor area of 32,000 square feet; and, d. The zoning of the properties to the north, south, east, and west are Industrial Park (IP) District, and the properties to the north, south, and east are also within the Haven Avenue Overlay District (HADD); and e. The application contemplates the subdivision of the subject parcel into twenty-one (21) units for condominium purposes providing private ownership of individual office spaces and common ownership of interior and exterior common space areas; and, p-� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-55 SUBTT1 9932—ANDRESEN ENGINEERING December 10, 2014 Page 2 f. The applicant only proposes the creation of individual units for condominium purposes on a fully developed commercial office property and additional development of the site (i.e., building, grading, or public improvements) is not proposed. 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 subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of.the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is to subdivide the property, and the office building into twenty-one (21) units for condominium purposes — no development of the site is proposed. The underlying General Plan designation is Industrial Park; and, b. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project is to subdivide the property, specifically the office building into twenty- one (21) units for condominium purposes and no development of the site is proposed; and, C. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed subdivision meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the technical and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and, d. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into twenty-one (21) units for condominium purposes and no development of the site is proposed; and, e. The design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. On July 12, 2000,the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration in connection with the City's approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-53, and was prepared addressing environmental impacts associated with the initial development of the project site. The subdivision for condominium purposes will not result in any new development or changes to the project site; and, f. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed project is to subdivide the property, specifically the existing office building into twenty-one (21) units for condominium purposes and no development or changes to the site are proposed; and, g. 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. The proposed project is to subdivide the property, specifically the existing office building into twenty-one (21) units for condominium purposes and no development of the site is proposed. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 12, 2000 in connection with the City's approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-53 for development of the site. The proposed subdivision will not result in any development or changes to the project site. Prior to approving the proposed subdivision, the Planning Commission determined that no additional environmental documentation is necessary since the project will not result in any new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts would occur; there is no new information that shows the project will pr-1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-55 SUBTT19932 —ANDRESEN ENGINEERING December 10, 2014 Page 3 ® have new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. 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. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the subdivision of a Parcel of approximately 82,328 square feet (1.89 acres) that is currently developed with one (1) three-story commercial office building totaling 32,000 square feet into twenty-one (21) units for office condominium purposes and common ownership areas within the Industrial Park (IP) District, located at 9220 Haven Avenue —APN: 0209-262-19. .2) All applicable Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 99-53 shall apply. 3) Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, all organizational documents for the. project including Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney. The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with the review of these documents. The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded prior to, or concurrently with, recordation of the final map. A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within five (5) days after their recordation. These provisions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Individual units (i.e., office suites) shall -be available for private ownership, and that all other areas (i.e., building exterior; hallways, stairways, elevators, bathrooms, utility areas, etc.) shall be commonly owned, and that there shall be no "exclusive use" areas outside the building. b) No unit in the development shall be sold unless a Property Owners Association has been legally formed with the right to assess all these properties which are jointly owned or benefited to operate and maintain all other mutually available features of the development including, but not limited to building features and amenities, parking lot, landscaping, and utilities, etc. c) The City shall be included as a party to the CC&Rs for enforcement purposes of those CC&R provisions in which the City has interest, as reflected in the following provisions. However, the City shall not be obligated to enforce the CC&Rs. d) The requirement that association bylaws be established. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-55 SUBTT1 9932—ANDRESEN ENGINEERING - December 10, 2014 Page 4 e) Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including but not limited to, building features, landscaped areas, walls and fences, parking lot (i.e., walkways, sidewalks, driveways), trash enclosures, fire alarm, fire sprinklers, underground water supply, fire lanes, water quality control features, etc. In addition, the CC&Rs shall indicate the maintenance obligations and reciprocal easements related to the reciprocal and shared facilities with the adjacent commercial center, including, but not limited to, provisions for a reciprocal agreement for the maintenance and use of the on-site fire protection (fire hydrant). Statements noting these agreements, easements, etc., shall also be included on the Final Map. f) Membership in the Property Owners Association shall be inseparable from ownership of individual units. g) Architectural controls shall be provided and may include, but not be limited to, provisions regulating exterior finishes, roof materials, fences and walls, accessory structures, exterior mechanical equipment, etc., consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. h) Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section e. Examples of maintenance standards.are shown below: i. All common area landscaping and private areas visible from any public right-of-way shall be properly maintained such that they are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, debris, and weeds. All trees and shrubs shall be trimmed so they do not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Trees shall be pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring properties and shall be maintained so they do not have droppings or create other nuisances to neighboring properties. All trees shall also be root pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and damage to sidewalks, driveways, and structures. ii. All building and site features shall be maintained so that they are safe for users. Significant pavement cracks; pavement distress, excessive slab settlement, abrupt'vertical variations, and debris on travel ways shall be removed or repaired promptly. iii. Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be-detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. i) No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the Property Owners Association's obligation to maintain the common areas or other CC&R provisions in which the City has an interest, as noted above, or to alter, modify, terminate, or change the City's right to enforce maintenance of the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-55 SUBTT19932 —ANDRESEN ENGINEERING December 10, 2014 Page 5 common areas shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the • City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. 4) In conjunction with the submittal of CC&R's and prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit to the City applicable recorded documentation that establishes, and/or ensures the continuation of, agreements, easements, etc., for the purpose of mutual/reciprocal access and parking between the office building and adjacent commercial center. 5) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 6) Any proposals for development within the project site shall require the review and approval of the City's Planning Department prior to construction and/or installation. 7) All signs shall comply with Chapter 17.74 (Sign Regulations for Private Property) of the Development Code. No additional ground or mounted signs shall be allowed by virtue of this subdivision. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014. ® PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary. I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of December 2014, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: p I� Conditions of Approval RANCHO CUCAMONcn Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT19932 Project Name: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19932 Location: 9220 HAVEN AVE -020926219-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: A. Planning Department 1. 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 hearing. Notice of Exemption- $50 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 No. 14", Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheets 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. This tentative tract 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. 5. 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. 6. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 7. Prior to Final Map recordation, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. B. Engilneerina Services Department .1. The final tract map shall be submitted for review and approval. Plan check fees will be required and determined at time of submittal. Printed:12/2/2014 www.CityofRC.us Item D-11 t Project#: SUBTT19932 Project Name: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19932 Location: 9220 HAVEN AVE-020926219-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: B. Engineering Services Department 2. 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. E. Grading Section 1. A Storm Water Quality Management Plan is on file with the Engineering Department's Environmental Programs Division under file number DRCCUP99-53. Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall provide to the Building Official (or his designee) a copy of the previously recorded Storm Water Quality Management Plan "WQMP Certification". In addition, all added appendi including the project Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCBR's) listing the storm water quality management plan treatment devices (commonly referred to as BMP's), including the required inspection and maintenance of such storm water treatment devices will be provided to be inserted into the copy on file with the City. 2. A copy of the SUBTT19932 conditions ofapproval along with all previous discretionary permit numbers such as DRCCUP99-53 conditions of approval shall be included in the amended Storm Water Quality Management Plan in an appendix to the previously approved WQMP. 3. Prior to recording of the Final Map the applicant shall complete all required storm water quality best management practices as described in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) DRCCUP99-53, including but not limited to the following items described in said WQMP: a) Paving patterns to be used in areas to allow for greater permeability (page A-9); b) Walkways will be open jointed to allow for percolation at joints (page .A-10); c) Dry wells and infiltration Trenches Roof downspouts can be directed to dry wells or infiltration trenches. A dry will is constructed by excavating a hole in the ground and filling it with an open graded aggregate, and allowing the water to fill the dry well and infiltrate after the storm event; d) Vegetated area to be placed in numbers and locations that allow for a longer path of flow, in order to allow for greater percolation; e) Install storm drain inserts. 4. Prior to recording of the Final Map the land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the underground storm water quality best management' devices (BMP's) 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 BMP's are the responsibility of the land owner. 5. Prior to recording of the Final Map the applicant shall install all the storm water quality best management practices (BMP's) as described in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) filed with the City under number "DRCCUP99-53", and shall request an inspection of all. required BMP's by the Engineering Services Department Environmental Programs section. A written inspection report shall be submitted by the Environmental Programs Manager (or their designee) to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1212/2014 Page 2 of 2 Item D-12 i Ls. SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RANCHO CUCAMONGA DECEMBER 10, 2014 NAME COMPANY ADDRESS/EMAIL G ie G� 1v Aac NOR RA.�;CHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA Planning Commission December 10 , 2014 Warehouse expansion and canopy addition for the Steeiscape facility DRC2014-00493 VicinityMap RANCHO UCAMONGA CALIFORNIA Pd �ti•o.-n�e n P.n+',r—'A ��...r':0.; _ f 'ZyL AE iRancho Cucammoongg an 61.e nrrero u•m: 11200 Arrow Route no — pa ;n st ern r:• r-- S 1 I Prlrrnnrr,g•-f•vtb 3 '- y - I _ HE`mc^.if lii)t 4 r RXNCHC) Existing Facility CCTC ,MONGA CALIFO NM • Project site is currently developed with the existing Steelscape facility which includes: — Existing 252,193 square foot warehouse & processing facility. — Full site improvements including building, parking (truck & passenger) and all street frontage improvements. — Existing building constructed of prefabricated metal siding. r T . RCH0AN Proposal CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA Proposed improvements include: — Warehouse addition totaling 12,260 : square feet. Designed using prefabricated metal siding to matdh listing building. — Canopy addition totaling 12,600 square feet. — Relocating existing trash compactor, propane fueling station, liquid hydrogen tank, liquid nitrogen tank, and scrap bins. - =a Enlarged Site Plan RANCHO T ' ;L(',A.MON(;A Cr IFOR ` A BREMCO i 1 — 1 1 ----------- -------- --------------------- --------- i i 1{ 1 1 - •QEEELM 1 1 IiNE iF. .- - PROEOBFO Yin WUB10Uf! �NIENJYSE ` ®iric fAtf f F. T'R MJr CCMf. —E—CO— (E) EIbCOYfr(E)COATING FACILITY it MaiEaOUSE n f.� - �sl occ f f coNfr. fpAPAl011:. s-eelscape x`~ Mot sm vswe Al.4 Elevations RANCH4 CU(ANIONGA CALIFORNIA NORTH COLOR LEGEND A BUTLER BR RIBBED ME-AL PANEL ---- _ ------��_ COLOR:COOL GIRO 'N-'.TF,SRI 75. BREMCO 1 Ft ooxmwu=now PA14TED CONCRETE _ WAINSCOT. COLOR:DUNN EDWARDS DEE3333,f-ANILTON BLUE INATC.EXISTING) C PAIVTEO STEEL COLUMNS - COLOR: OUNNEDWARDS DEE335.NOVELTY W'/" steelscape ELEVATION �.�' COIOVFNVAnOM EAST A3.3 T RANCHO Environmental Review CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA • Environmental Review: — Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. — Studies Included: • Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis. • Noise Impact Analysis. • Arborist Report. — Proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program. • Short term air quality & GHG emissions during construction activity. • Long term air quality & GHG emissions from operational activity. • Grading impacts to air quality and drainage. • Noise impacts during construction and operational activity. i Conclusion RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA • Staff recommends approval of Design Review DRC2014-00493, subject to Conditions of Approval , such as: — Construction of a 16,260 square foot warehouse and 12,600 square foot canopy addition designed to match existing metal building . — Addition of solar panels on the canopy roof to be flush mounted . — Revising site plan to accommodate 1 additional parking space. — Obtain approval of Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00494 for removal of 15 trees, 9 of which are heritage trees. RANCHO CUc:nMONcn CAL,FORMA Planning Commission December 10, 2014 CUP Modification for Gerdau Steel Plant DRC2013=00992 bw sty zf,F BE - Ili SL AL •G �S — � ay,. s-� `J4[ti O � w Overall Site Plan .It Mm AREA OF STREET RANCHO IMPROVEMENTS CU(AMON(;A CAL1FO1tNLA, r $0 I I QIC fdl',W4 Sail:f1[klt� YI 1-1-1 1 W_lVT PROJECT I AREA _ _I" 111 IfRSJ� l afW'+fRlitT • i 41R7 •l �7�I I J' 1Yytlf�.sr .I I r i RANCHO Existing Facility .C,UC',AM0NGA CALIFORNIA • Project site is currently developed with the existing Gerdau Steel Plant and includes: — 19,049 square feet of office. — 91 ,113 square feet of manufacturing. — 70,490 square feet of warehouse. — On an 80 acre site. • On January 14, 2009, the Planning Commission approved CUP DRC2008-00512 for the following: — New 16,781 square foot Baghouse (air filtering building). — New 11 ,778 square foot electrical substation. — New 6,930 square foot Melt Shop canopy. — Increase scrap throughput to 100,000 tons per month. — These improvements were never built. oil RANCHO Proposal LTCAMONGA GU IFORN1A • CUP modification includes: — Reducing the size of the proposed Baghouse from 16,781 square feet to 11 ,853 square feet. — Reducing the size of the proposed electrical substation from 11 ,778 square feet to 4,000 square feet. — Enclosing the Melt Shop cupola with a 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy. — Constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building. — Increase scrap throughput to 80,000 tons per month. i MEN Project Design ANCHO .C,UC'.AMON(;A �AL1FORN1A • Design meets or exceeds all Development Code standards, except building height. Building heights above 75 feet subject to a CUP. • Baghouse, Melt Shop Canopy, Substation, and Melt Shop addition . — Metal siding and roofing are sheet metal, similar to materials of the existing buildings. — Painted "Signal White" on the siding and "Ultramarine Blue" on the upper siding and trim. — The canopy and ducting will be painted "Shale Gray". Project Site Plan RANCHo (N) F!R[ LAVE r CUICAMONGA �f- Na a Namr 'ysfam Dust Loadout � za.sO L BaghoUSb spark arrmorl- � J9008 exhaust ductwork—, O �+ —.— — Vryed ve rJwp6 ollenl � 40Wet rx3*ac N0.r 511Or _ Malt Shop Canopy ' Melt Shop Addition--� Fan&Stack Elec Substation � I see Fire Protection Plan for final Fire Lane `"5""°`"°"°° -.-.rte sLe-..7*4 i.�l location WINElevations RANCHO CU(AMONGA CAL1FORNLA, b N FnSc JlEir 5+0a n r'. SIALK new an rawJr• ---'--- – ---I - -- -- ---- rcw eJ�.'•tOJ3E N'.W I:�M':.:VIr1'.1J1J Q II \ g 1 YEM LQKMIIi —_. eukowe II SITE ELEVATION LOOKING SOUTH suc r•,n ML Elevations RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNLA, WA I � stcartx.t•aT:s- L.OTf7+C t -conn Y VAnc C Uxym.&T&WEMftrr � � 2-1-M.,wu(nC'IMnXi •t_...�` IMIft01D _ W+w4 T4 MMM ?t'Sr,tOR.e- ,� I 'MIATCr Y0..! __. '� dCtii M1fdM: rl I 1. 1 nal Marta¢ .� T Tar da' [L<y_I Jt. ❑+�v awes m mT MM I I I WA 0" I I 23—r Y.',b- ".-3. fin•-b' - _,. _ 1 D R R 4 e EAST SIDE WEST SIDE Tr Elevations RANCHO CUCAMONGA �ALIFORMA 1 � -IME PLO �,1� N1MM0.9[ •'h 7f1Y MpISI .tr;ma rCC,4),rmos- _ 1 ':own Lm"ro Rmfwx G,f pMMky _ loq.fc �1`10kt rD,pM1yR At .I aaT MfNI _ GMbIC J Sao Ckf / / I oJ1.pKNG 1 I J 0 1 N14 _ - F "lowCUES PIMMPUSE I I ' I ft10 MERkEF - t wCt[ I ------7 3 , . I A9 nfl[C k PD.fCDf171 ,D fab �r Sm.W M fCM I D.9'Sa Pu7E1 F-ntctan FMR09.IE 1 5,16[ 9MT fM Z 1_I 0SOUTH SIDE EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1, xue�ro-r-0 Elevations NOR Dust Load-out buildinc ANC Exhaust stack and fans— RA ` HO New Baghouse — t CUAMONGA ` CALIFORNIA Men shop (existing) 'l '_L[MeMT9 SHALL BE cONSTNUC FMM CfWCTIRUGA-90 MEL WEV STEELANOSMILM kLN1XrABUMNLE n W7-CTS.GLL F W BMEO TO MACH New ductwork THE EmeTw vv-s P,cam 6 ECNEa y — Melt Shop canopy VIEW LOOKING.$QUTHWEST - Existing Melt Shop :cn:E mn New Stack / a istin hoe 9 Baghouse Melt Shop addition �i t — Melt Shop canopy New Baghouse New substation New Dust Load-out building _VIEW LOO KNt G NORTHEEMj SI-4U ' Elevations CHO UCAM0NGA ALIFORNIA -.,A :x VIEW#', -BEFORE VIEW#2-BEFORE VIEW#3 BEFORE(LOOKING FROM 1-15 P^ fN�YfMCM1 9YpGlOM .MC%99&71 �1 91D, \1 11(11 p.pc,,-wn�c� !JS!101MP , M4!91V Mp111p1 �- ..,, -;- ,�_•�� ai�lr-fir VIEW S1-AFTER VIEW/2-AFTER VIEW#3-AFTER(LOOKING FROM 1-15 FWY) J f r RXNCHO Environmental Review UCAMONGA CALIFORNIA • Environmental Review: — Mitigated Negative Declaration approved on January 14, 2009. — Addendum prepared for current proposal. Studies included: • Air Quality Study for the Melt Shop Evacuation and Baghouse Project. — No new mitigation measures. 1 i Conclusion RA'N'CHO CUCAMONGA • Staff recommends approval of Design Review DRC2013-0992, subject to Conditions of Approval, such as: — Approval for construction of a 11 ,853 square foot Baghouse, 4,000 square foot electrical substation, enclosing a 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy, enclosing a 6,090 square foot Melt Shop addition, and other minor alterations. — All Standard Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and environmental mitigations contained in PC Resolution No 09-01 for CUP DRC2008-00512 shall apply. GERDA 1 1410-1 -4- 7 - _ kL - Gerdau - Rancho Cucamonga Mill -- .-�-- _1 4 ti OF 2014 Who is Gerdau ? a I- More than 45,000 employees in 14 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Peru, Spain, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela. Traded on Sao Paulo, New York, Madrid, and Lima Stock Exchanges. Current capacity of more than 25 million metric tons of crude steel per year, with US$ 17.513 in consolidated net revenues in 2013. GERDAU Who is Gerdau? + .e 14th largest steel company in _ worldWorld Steel , • 113 years of history t� Steel for the civil construction , industrial and agribusiness sectors One of the largest suppliers of special long steel in the world Leader in long steel production in the Americas GERDAU y Gerdau An Integrated Organization IPA_ 1 i Gerdau: 389 locations around the world GLN: 130 locations in the U.S. and Canada Mission , Vision and Values �_ - � ` t ► 1 = To create value for our = To be a global organization p customers, shareholders, 0 and a benchmark in any employees and •— tn communities by operating (n business we conduct. as a sustainable steel > business Values Be the CUSTOMER's choice SAFETY above all Respected, engaged and fulfilled EMPLOYEES Pursuing EXCELLENCE with SIMPLICITY Focus on RESULTS INTEGRITY with all stakeholders Economic, social and environmental SUSTAINABILITY GERDAU { Gerdau Long Steel North America I � . '� '► - h'M �_ Annual manufacturing capacity of over 11 million tons of finished steel products in North America Employs approximately 9,500 people in the United States and Canada at more than 130 locations — mills, reinforcing steel fabrication and placement, metallics and raw materials 2013 revenue of Gerdau Long Steel North America is US$5.813 We operate in 29 U.S. states and 2 Canadian provinces GERDAU LongNorth AmericaGerdau , , i �► Mill Locations �� - � - , yreville Perth Amboy rsburg • O Merchairtts Jacksonville O Wire Rod/Rebar • StructufA.I$jSBQ " Tampa ® Joint Venture . . ' 7 r - Gerdau Long Steel North America Product Mix Offers a diverse and balanced / Merchants/SBQ 26% product mix of merchant bar Structural quality (MBQ), special bar - quality (SBQ), rebar, flat rolled Rebar 19% / steel and wire rod. 1Wire Rod Fabricated % 13% ' • - • Rebar 32% MBQ/SBQ Rebar Fabricated Structural Flat Rolled Wire Rod h u.. GERDAU Steel Production `'`' " Blast furnace Iron ore Converter Integrated mill Continuous casting AW i Electric ` " ti, • arc it furnace Billets Scrap Ladle s Ladle Pig iron - a furnace Mme- -- - Reheating -� Finishing Rolling mill furnace Drawing unit Wire rod Laying head unit Drawn Cooling bed wire . V Ol Nair machine Welding Galvanizing manufacturing unit processes GERDAU Ok Gerdau in California Gerdau employs more than 1 ,300 people at six locations in California, which starts with the production of Napa steel in Rancho Cucamonga Fairfield Competitive wages and benefits San Bernardino total approx. $78 million for the state of California Santa Fe Springs San Diego Annual property taxes in California Rancho Cucamonga are about $895,400 Steel industry has an employment ripple effect of 7: 1 GERDAU Gerdau in Rancho Cucamonga The Rancho Cucamonga Mill began production in 1956 as Etiwanda Steel Producers The Mill was acquired by Gerdau in 2010 Approximately 275 employees Most employees are members of the United Steelworkers of America GERDAU Our Commitment to Safety and Health In> �- �- - � - I'DAAM Our goal is to demonstrate a unified commitment to promote safety and health across the company. F 17, GERDAU Environment = - Gerdau is one of the largest recyclers in the _ world it transforms 16 millions of metric tons AIW of scrap into steel every year. Y +i —%wombs / CA TEE WC: r J ~ SUSTA1t�1 One of Gerdau's greatest concerns is how it r performs in relation to the environment. This concern is reflected in the company's daily practices, in investments for the continuous .M upgrading of equipment and in its environmental awareness-raising programs. 13 GERDAU . _10FIr-up raw z Environment " ,.. � �' ► 1 ` * Air Our Steel Mills in have modern dust removal systems that very efficiently capture particles generated in the steel-production process. This filtered material is a by-product that can be used in other sectors of the economy. Water During steel production, water is used on a large scale to cool the equipment and products. The process is achieved in a closed loop that allows it to be treated and reused, substantially reducing consumption. Through new technology and awareness-raising, water intake by Gerdau plants is decreasing from year to year. Today the Company reuses almost 97% of its industrial process water. GERDAU LEED Regional Materials -ago ;- Using oUsing Gerdau steel in major California construction projects contributes to the achievement of LEED certifications from the U.S. Green Building Council The company is one of America's biggest recyclers, a contributing to environmental preservation and reducing the quantity of material deposited in landfills and at inappropriate sites By using scrap steel in its steel production process, Gerdau's recycling of steel scrap also reduces energy use and, by consequence, CO2 emissions 1.,CED CERT1F�F� Gerdau can help earn points for projects due to the recycled content of steel and in many cases, for being a regional product. With six locations in the state, the facility is often found within 500 miles of major construction projects GERDAU Environmental Education i T 1 Environmental Education As part of its environmental management practices, Gerdau promotes awareness campaigns, conferences, and training courses for employees and third parties. In 2012, these activities totaled 48,200 hours with the involvement of about 26,000 people. GERDAU MOM Gerdau Institute Gerdau's Social Responsibility Program Gerdau Institute coordinates and carries 17Acommunities around the world out social responsibility programs within the communities where the company operates 14 countries Gerdau uses organized volunteerism as an agent for change for sustainable development The activities are directed toward three key areas: education, quality of management and community support Globally, the company invested $61 million in 2013, with the volunteerism of nearly 10,000 employees GERDAU Our Commitment to the Community1 Gerdau's social responsibility program is: Linked to business objectives �•� 1 Habitat Relevant to our employees and community for Humanity® Have both financial and employee engagement components Have executive level sponsorship Company-wide when feasible Efficiently administered, understood and JuniorAchievement appreciated by our employees GERDAU i Our Commitment to Rancho Cucamo a� Employees at the Rancho Cucamonga Mill participate in an annual holiday food drive h donating thousands of pounds of food to the GERDAU Inland Empire United Way, the Foothill C K. Family Shelter and Meals on Wheels over the past three years As part of the Adopt-A-Highway program, Gerdau adopted a ramp at the 1-15 Freeway in April 2013 The Mill participates in monthly gun melts v 4 with local law enforcement and partner with m y the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department annually to melt confiscated weapons, which are recycled and transformed into steel GERDAU Our Steel on the Map Ii AT _ ; . tr 6 a ;Lr �Xw W- Panama Canal Expansion Panama C ERDAU 14 Our Steel on the Map wqc;=i ke 4 .. .. . .......... `rte The New NY Bridge Westchester & Rockland Counties, New York %� GERDAU Our Steel on the Map -a - - 1 Cooper River Bridge Charleston, SC World Trade Center New York City 22 GERDAU Our Steel on the Map a _ Automobiles Largest Producer If your car was "Made in America," there is a good chance it was with Gerdau steel. Seventy-five percent of automotive and commercial vehicles in North America use Gerdau specialty steel to make safety-critical parts, like the crankshaft, steering rack and wheel hub. Ford, Chevy and other American car and truck manufacturers rely on these products to ensure the safety of the automobiles they build. GERDAU Our Steel on the Map Forklift Tines Largest Producer Across the country, Gerdau steel helps almost every forklift transport tons of material from one place to another. Whether moving a roll of carpet for your home, boxes food at your local grocery store or construction materials for infrastructure projects, forklifts are literally lifting up the industry with the help of Gerdau steel. 25 1 U Wo"0�A r�i Calif. Projects with Gerdau Steel Apple Campus 2 Cupertino, Calif. GERDAU Melt Shop Evacuation Project bw A $37 million investment to construct a new baghouse is approved by the company, which will be approximately twice the capacity of the existing baghouse and improve working conditions inside the melt shop. The new baghouse ensures a sustainable future for the mill by going above and beyond environmental regulations. GERDAU Melt Shop Evacuation Project A -- 4- 44 F-.4 Z L. '. I 7 -f - Baghouse m 6ERDAU �A as m 6ERDAU Melt Shop Evacuation Projectat :► - -� Scope • New 1,200,000 acfm baghouse including fans, motors and controls • New Dust Load Out facility for loading by rail including track and switches • New Canopy replacing existing 75,000 ft3 with a 285,000 ft3 • New Electrical Substation • Enclose cleaning operations of existing quench tower and drop out box • Relocate Slag load out and install an evacuation point • Enclose dust loading operations • Fire Main and Loop Modifications • New domestic Water Line Schedule • Perimeter Landscaping • Construction Starts -June 2015 • Dedication of 20ft West Parcel to the City 0 Start Operation - November 2016 • Melt Shop Paint • Storm Water treatment GERDAU u ■ O CL O ti Melt Shop Evacuation Project r Existing Arrangement GERDAU Melt Shop Evacuation Project d j GERDAU Melt Shop Evacuation Project Existing- Orange New -Yellow GERDAU 4 is a 1 7 F,,,, y� � Baghouse SW View - Future GERDAU 20 lifts is as as Q C9 W a Gerdau Long Steel North America External Communications and Public :,=-�� Kim Selph Manager, External Communications & Public Affairs Gerdau - Tampa Office Office: (813) 319-4859 Cell: (813) 362-6394 Kaley E. Goodfellow Specialist, External Communications & Public Affairs Gerdau - Tampa Office Office: (813) 207-2235 Cell: (813) 449-0519 Lindsey Edwards Specialist, External Communications & Public Affairs Gerdau - Jackson Office Office: (517) 960-2165 Cell: (517) 240-6499 GERDAU RANCHO UCAMONGA r;AI.IFOP,NIA Planning Commission December 10, 2014 Office Building Condominium Map for SUBTT19932 RAN C H 0 UCAMONGA Mg CALIFORNIA • Previous approvals: Background — On July 12, 2000 the Planning Commission approved CUP 99-53, a 4 acre, 2 parcel development in the Industrial Park (IP) District. — Northerly parcel — Development of a 3 -story 32,000 square foot office building (proposed for Condominium office units). — Southerly parcel — Development of a 4,450 square foot service station/commercial center (ARCO/Subway) and a 3,500 square foot restaurant (EI Ranchero). — Parcels are separately owned, but include reciprocal access & egress rights. 1 LNT7YA i � ` �uien,.em l •• ' 1 -�- se -3 vv"m It 7-77 ■� l � � I I !, - - I. �era�r-rwvrr I��I�Mk1l'�Y�AfY1t! lwfovA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNTLA, 0 ■ r ry r v va E • Tentative Tract Map Proposal: — Project site is fully developed with a 3 -story 32,000 square foot office building. — Subdivision of the office building into 21 condominium units. — Units will be individually owned. — Common ownership of common areas (i.e., bathrooms, hallways, stairways, elevator, building exterior, parking lot, etc.). — No new construction or project site improvements are proposed. 3 RANCHO UGAMONGA AL1FORN1A • CEQA ------------- - Previous MND for CUP 99-53. Under CEQA section 15162, no further environmental review is required. • Staff recommends approval of SUBTT19932, subject to Conditions of Approval, such as: — CC&R's for common and private ownership areas, building features, landscaped areas, fire alarms, fire sprinklers, underground water supply, fire lanes, water control features, etc. — Continuation of agreements & easements for purposes of mutual/reciprocal access & parking.