Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-22 Agenda Packet - PC-HPC JANUARY 22, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 1 of 5 A. 7:00 P.M. – CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo _____ Vice Chairman Oaxaca _____ Commissioner Dopp _____ Commissioner Morales _____ Commissioner Williams _____ B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by Commissioners for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2020. JANUARY 22, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 2 of 5 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT - A request to develop an 11.73 acre site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet and a request to reduce the building setback from neighboring residential properties within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 9th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 9th Street – APN: 0207-262-28, 0207-262-35, 0207-262-36, 0207-262-41, and 0207- 262-42 . A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. Continued from January 8th meeting due to noticing error. D2. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND - A request for site plan and architectural review of 6 single-family residences on 3.19 acres of land within the Very Low (VL) Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane; APNs: 1061-691-22 through 27. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. Continued from January 8th meeting due to noticing error. D3. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE - A request for site plan and architectural review of an industrial building totaling 25,399 square feet on 1.87 acres of land located east of Vineyard Avenue and north of 8th Street in the General Industrial (GI) District; APN: 0209-013-13, -43, -44. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. Continued from January 8th meeting due to noticing error. D4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 - LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC – A request to construct 867 for rent apartments that will include duplexes, two and three-story stacked flats, and two and three-story townhomes. The project will also include a commercial pad at the southwest corner of 6th street and The Resort Parkway, and roughly 5,000 square feet of commercial space integrated with four live/work townhome buildings located along the JANUARY 22, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 3 of 5 westside of the roundabout on The Resort Parkway. The project will be developed on roughly 39.68 acres within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1 and will provide a variety of open space areas, associated onsite parking, and additional onsite amenities. APN’s 0210- 102-08, 0210-102-09, and 0210-102-10. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. D5. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00007 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to modify standards for accessory dwelling units in compliance with state law. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15282(h). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. D6. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to modify the development standards applicable to single-family residential development within a specific area of the Red Hill community that is generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Base Line Road, west of Vineyard Avenue, and east of Grove Avenue (the City’s west boundary). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. E. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS: COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: JANUARY 22, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 4 of 5 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. F. ADJOURNMENT Adjournment to February 12, 2020 HPC/PC meeting and will be held in the Tri-Communities Conference Room. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, January 16, 2020, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. 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. JANUARY 22, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 5 of 5 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 $3,114 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Vicinity Map Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 2020 D1: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019- 00205 D2: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 D3: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 D4: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019 -00674 D1 D4 D2 D3 JANUARY 8, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 1 of 5 A. 7:00 P.M. – CALL TO ORDER 7:00 pm Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo __x___ Vice Chairman Oaxaca __x___ Commissioner Dopp __x___ Commissioner Morales __x___ Commissioner Williams __x___ Additional Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant; Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Seeing none, closed. 007 007 JANUARY 8, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 2 of 5 C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by Commissioners for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2019. C2. Consideration to adopt the Meeting (Workshop) Minutes of December 11, 2019. Moved by Commissioner Williams, second by Vice Chair Oaxaca; carried 5-0-0 D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT D1. Status of the General Plan Update. Anne McIntosh, Planning Director shared with the Commissioners an update and presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) where they are in the process. In her presentation, she included the history of its development and what is to be expected in the upcoming months and the importance of each person’s involvement. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. E1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT - A request to develop an 11.73 acre site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 9th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 9th Street – APN: 0207-262-28, 0207-262-35, 0207-262-36, 0207-262-41, and 0207- 262-42 . Related File: Minor Exception DRC2019-00205. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. 008 008 JANUARY 8, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 3 of 5 Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner, gave the Staff Report and presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Recommending this item be continued to January 22, 2020, due to noticing error. Public comment was received by Josh Bourgeois, who stated he will hold off on his comments until item is brought back at the meeting on January 22, 2020. Moved by Commissioner Dopp, second by Commissioner Williams; carried 5-0-0 to continue to January 22, 2020, Planning Commission meeting. E2. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND – A request to consider requirements to construct trail improvements previously approved under Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18961, related to site plan and architectural review of 6 single-family residence on SUBTT18961, located at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane in the Very Low (VL) District; APN: 1061-691-21, -22, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27. Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner, gave the Staff Report and presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Recommending this item be continued to January 22, 2020, due to noticing error. Moved by Commissioner Dopp, second by Vice Chair Oaxaca, carried 5-0-0 to continue to January 22, 2020, PC meeting. E3. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE - A request for site plan and architectural review of an industrial building totaling 25,399 square feet on 1.87 acres of land located east of Vineyard Avenue and north of 8th Street in the General Industrial (GI) District; APN: 0209-013-13, -43, -44. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner, gave the Staff Report and presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Recommending this item be continued to January 22, 2020, due to noticing error. Moved by Commissioner Dopp, second by Commissioner Williams; carried 5-0-0 to continue to January 22, 2020, PC meeting. 009 009 JANUARY 8, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 4 of 5 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. F. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS: None COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: None G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Morales to adjourn the meeting; carried 5-0-0. 7:31pm I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, January 2, 2020, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. 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 010 010 JANUARY 8, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 5 of 5 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 $3,114 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. 011 011 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT - A request to develop an 11.73 acre site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 9th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 9th Street – APN: 0207-262-28, -35, -36, -41, and - 42. Related file: Minor Exception DRC2019-00205. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019- 00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT - A request to reduce the required 45’ setback adjacent to residential to 41’ in conjunction with a proposal to develop the site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 9th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 9th Street – APN: 0207-262-28, -35, -36, -41, and -42. Related file: Design Review DRC2018-00912. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: • Approve Design Review DRC2018-00912 and Minor Exception DRC2019-00205 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: The subject applications were originally scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public hearing that was to be held on January 8, 2020. Thirty (30) days in advance of the public hearing, the City advertises the public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the newspaper, posted notices on the project site, and mailed notices to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Due to an error, the project site was not posted and the notices were not mailed. Because of this issue, the City could not conduct the public hearing for the project as originally scheduled. As there is an environmental assessment associated with the project, a minimum 30-day notification period is required prior to the public hearing. Therefore, Staff requested, and the Planning Commission granted, a Continuance of the advertised public hearing to January 22, 2020. DATE: January 22, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Mike Smith, Principal Planner 012 012 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DRC2018-00912 AND ME DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is irregularly shaped and consists of five (5) parcels located at the north side of 9th Street about 550 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. The subject parcels have a combined area of 11.73 acres with overall maximum dimensions of about 640 feet (east-west) and about 885 feet (north-south). The site is partially developed with several industrial buildings of various sizes but is otherwise vacant. There are also paved areas for parking and driveways, and landscaping that varies in type and condition. The site has a street frontage along 9th Street of about 640 feet. The property and buildings are all vacant. The site is generally level. The elevation difference from north to south is about 15 feet. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Mostly Vacant with Limited Development General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District North Single Family Residences General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Apartment Complex Medium Residential Medium Residential (M) District South Vacant General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Office Building Industrial Development East Industrial Offices General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Self-Storage Facility West Apartment Complex Medium Residential Medium Residential (M) District Condominium Complex * - legal, non-conforming, i.e. residences within an industrial zone ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposes to construct three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings with a combined floor area of 236,534 square feet (Exhibit A). Individually, the floor area of each building is 50,771 square feet, 85,209 square feet, and 100,554 square feet (Buildings A, B, and C, respectively, Exhibits B, C, and D). Tenants for the buildings have not been identified at this time. Since the buildings exceed 50,000 square feet in floor area, activities within this building would be classified as "Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution – Medium” per Section 17.32.020(G)19) of the Development Code. The site layout, building plotting/orientation, and building floor plans are typical for this type of development. The applicant is not proposing a tentative parcel map for this project. As the project site consists of multiple parcels, the plotting of each building does not “fit” within the existing parcels of the project site. To address this, the applicant will be applying for lot line adjustments. This type of application is processed administratively, and the adjustments will be required to be completed prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed overall 013 013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DRC2018-00912 AND ME DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 3 Site Plan assumes that the applicant acquires the small parcel (APN: 0207-262-45) located at the southeast corner of the site and immediately adjacent to the flood control channel. This acquisition is in progress and, at the time of the preparation of this report, it is being finalized. The buildings will be plotted in a manner that has them arrayed from north to south relative to 9th Street with Building C, the largest of the buildings, located closest to the street. The office areas for each building will be located at their respective southwest and southeast corners. The docks and loading area for Building A be located on the east side of the building while the docks and loading areas for Buildings B and C will be on their respective south sides. The proposed buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of five colors (off white “creamy”, and “worldly gray”, and brown colors “latte”, “tea chest”, and “rockwood dark brown”). The buildings will have vertical formlined concrete panels at various locations. An additional primary material will be aluminum canopies while a secondary material will be glass panels. In the office areas, there are generous amounts of glass and formlined panels. In addition, the height of the parapets will higher than elsewhere on the buildings and will be “capped” with a metal cornice. As the uses expected within the building are to be logistics oriented, to maximize the efficiency of the interior space of each building, articulation of the wall planes is limited to a few locations along each elevation. Where this occurs, there will be a slight increase in the height of the parapet wall and a difference in paint color. There will be horizontal and vertical reveals/scoring on all elevations. As noted previously, the docks and loading areas for all the buildings will be on their respective east (Building A) or south sides (Building B and C). These features for Building A and B will not be visible from the 9th Street as they are plotted behind (relative to the street) Building C. Although these same features will be on the south side of Building C, they will not be visible as they will be screened by a concrete tilt-up wall. This wall will be aligned along the majority of the 9th Street frontage. The wall will be 8 feet in height as viewed from 9th Street, staggered in three sections, and will include corner pilasters. There will be two points of vehicular access via two driveways located on 9th Street. The required standard vehicle parking for the project will be distributed around the buildings. Trailer parking will be in the dock loading area. The distribution of landscaping will be generally along the 9th Street frontage, as well as the parking lots near the office areas, and along the project’s eastern boundary. Staff notes to the Commission that the proposed project assumes that the parcel at the southeast corner of the site is acquired. This parcel is too small to be used for any significant purpose and will be landscaped (if acquired). In the event that it is not, the applicant has prepared an alternate site plan. As a condition of approval, a concrete screen wall that matches the design of the above-noted wall will be required to be constructed along the property line between this parcel and the project site. The proposed project meets and/or exceeds all setback requirements except for the setback along the north property lines (abutting adjacent residential development). The typical setback requirement for side and rear yard setbacks in the General Industrial zone are five and zero feet, respectively. However, when abutting a residential property line, the setback 014 014 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DRC2018-00912 AND ME DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 4 is 45 feet. As the proposed setback is 41 feet, to allow for this the applicant has submitted a Minor Exception (discussed below) for consideration by the Planning Commission. Technical Standard Required Proposed Building Height Max. 75’ 42’-6” Floor Area Ratio 50-60% 46.3% Front Building Setback* Min. 25’ 95’ Side Building Setback Min. 5’ Min. 5’ Rear Building Setback Min. 0’ Min. 5’ Industrial Land Use Setback (Abutting a Residential Property Line) Min. 45’ 41’ Landscape Percentage Min. 10% 28.6% * - measured from the curb at the street B. Parking: Per Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, the parking requirement is based on the proposed mix of office and warehouse floor areas in the buildings. The project is required to have 166 vehicle parking spaces as shown in the table below: Type of Use Floor Area (Square Feet) Parking Ratio Number of Spaces Required Number of Spaces Proposed Proposed Buildings (overall) 236,534 - - - Building A 50,771 - - - Office 2,500 1/250 10 see below Warehouse1 48,271 varies2 32 see below Building B 85,209 - - - Office 5,000 1/250 20 see below Warehouse1 80,209 varies2 40 see below Building C 100,554 - - - Office 5,000 1/250 20 see below Warehouse1 95,554 varies2 44 see below Total Required/Total Provided: 166/1762 1 - For warehouse uses, the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; and 1 space per 4,000 square feet for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet; 2 - The trailer parking requirement is calculated separately from the standard parking requirement and is based on a ratio of one stall per dock door. Overall, twenty-three (23) spaces are required and twenty-three (23) spaces are proposed. C. Minor Exception DRC2019-00205: The project includes a request for a reduction in the required minimum building setback. Per Table 17.36.040-1 of the Development Code, the minimum side and rear setbacks (measured from the building wall to the property line) in all industrial districts is 5 feet (side) and zero feet (rear). However, as the project site is immediately adjacent to a residential district, i.e. zone, that is generally located to the west of the site, the minimum setback is required to be 45 feet per certain circumstances indicated 015 015 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DRC2018-00912 AND ME DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 5 in the above-noted table. The project contemplates a reduction in the rear setback to 41 feet. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the reduction to allow part of the northwest corner of Building B to encroach 4 feet into this setback. To allow the encroachment into the specified setback, a Minor Exception is required, and is reviewed, according to Section 17.16.110 of the Development Code. The findings of facts below support the necessary Minor Exception findings, which are required by the Development Code: Finding: The minor exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. Fact: The General Plan land use designation of the project site is General Industrial. The industrial warehouse/logistics project is consistent with the other industrial uses in the area and therefore consistent with the intent of the General Park designation of the General Plan. The General Plan does not establish a procedure for reducing setback requirements but recognizes the Development Code as the governing document for technical standards for building setback. The Development Code permits a reduction of up to 10% in the setback requirement. The proposed Minor Exception is for a reduction of 4 feet (8.9%). Therefore, the proposed setback reduction request is consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No specific plan nor development agreement applies to this project. Finding: The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. Fact: The proposed project is a set of industrial warehouse/logistics buildings with a combined floor area of 236,534 square feet for office and warehousing. It is similar with the other industrial uses and buildings in the general area. Per Table 17.36.040-1 of the Development Code, the minimum special building setback in all industrial districts when adjacent to a residential district is 45 feet (measured from the building wall to the property line). The proposed Minor Exception is for a reduction of 4 feet (8.9%). The reduction in the setback is for only for the northwest corner of Building B. The remainder of Building B, and the other two buildings proposed with this project, will be in compliance with the subject setback requirement. Furthermore, the physical separation between Building B and the nearest residential structure is about 115 feet. Therefore, the reduction in the setback requirement will not have an impact on the surrounding area and/or uses and the project will be compatible with the existing land uses. Finding: The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. Fact: The project site has an irregularly shaped perimeter along its west side. This results in a condition where many of the required site improvements for the project such as fire access lanes, parking, and landscaping are in unusual locations or have unusual layouts throughout the site which, in turn, affects the plotting of a building. In this case, Building B is at the most logical location on the site relative to above-noted improvements and Buildings A and C. Also, the part of the building that encroaches into the subject setback is minor. It 016 016 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DRC2018-00912 AND ME DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 6 consists of 110 feet (east-west horizontal dimension) of building wall plane and 440 square feet (a rectangular floor area of 4 feet x 110 feet). Furthermore, if the location of the building wall plane and corresponding floor plan was revised to comply with the subject setback requirement, it would result in operating inefficiencies for future potential tenants. Therefore, the reduction in the setback requirement accommodates unique site conditions. Finding: The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: The reduction in the setback requirement will not be a grant of special privilege as other applicants developing industrial project on sites with similar physical constraints could request a Minor Exception for consideration by the City. The reduction in the setback is for only 110 feet (east-west horizontal dimension) of building wall plane and 440 square feet (a rectangular floor area of 4 feet x 110 feet). This is negligible as the affected building is 466 feet long (east-west horizontal dimension) and has a floor area of 85,209 square feet. The remainder of the affected building and the other buildings proposed for the project will be at, or exceed, the required setback from the west property line. Therefore, the reduction in the building setback will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Wimberly, Guglielmo, and Cox) on October 15, 2019. A committee member questioned the need for a Minor Exception to allow the rear setback encroachment. This question was addressed by Staff. He also suggested that the developer complete the acquisition of APN: 0207-726-45 before the Planning Commission public hearing (the acquisition, at the time of the preparation of this report, is being finalized). No secondary issues were discussed, as reflected in the Design Review Committee Comments (Exhibit J). The Committee recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. E. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on October 10, 2019. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Their conditions of approval are included in the attached Resolution of Approval. F. Neighborhood Meeting: A Neighborhood Meeting was conducted at Cask-n-Clever (restaurant) located at 8689 9th Street on October 10, 2019. Notifications for the meeting were sent to all owners of property within 660 feet of the project site. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information about the project, receive comments, and answer project related questions. Approximately 16 residents attended the meeting. Generally, the neighbors expressed concern regarding traffic, on-site circulation, types of potential use, building heights, lighting, and perimeter walls. The developer addressed the questions and responded to the identified concerns. G. Public Art: This project is required to provide public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Based on the industrial square footage of the project, the total art value 017 017 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DRC2018-00912 AND ME DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 7 required per Section 17.124.020.C. is $234,534. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that requires the public art requirement to be met prior to occupancy. H. Tribal Consultation (Assembly Bill 52): As required by Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), the City submitted Tribal Consultation Requests to the six (6) Tribal Governments: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians following a completeness determination for Design Review DRC2018-00912. The notices were mailed on October 1, 2019 and provided for a 30-day comment period ending on November 1, 2019. During the comment period, Staff received responses from two (2) Tribal Governments requesting consultation and/or additional information about the project: San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. After the completion of the required consultations, both governments provided mitigation measures to protect their cultural resources. Those mitigation measures were included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Should any undocumented archaeological or cultural resources be discovered during grading activities, adherence to the mitigation measures will ensure that all impacts will be less than significant. I. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project was prepared (Exhibit K). Based on the findings contained in that IS, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. During the 30-day review public comment period, Staff received a comment letter from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on January 7, 2020. The letter commented on the applicant’s analysis of the air quality impacts and included recommended mitigation measures. The comment letter (Exhibit M) was forwarded to the applicant’s environmental consultant. The applicant’s environmental consultant provided a response to those comments which were, in turn, submitted to the SCAQMD. No follow-up comments were received from SCAQMD. The consultant’s responses to these comments are attached (Exhibit N). As noted above in the “Project Review Background” section above, the public hearing for the project was Continued from January 8, 2020 to January 22, 2020. To date, no additional comments have been received during the time between those dates. Overall, Staff has reviewed the comments from the above-noted entity, and the applicant’s consultant’s responses to them, and has concluded that no revisions to, and/or recirculation of, the IS/MND is required. 018 018 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DRC2018-00912 AND ME DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 8 FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, and police services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: MID AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING One of the City’s Council goals is to revitalize underutilized areas and enhance industrial land uses. The proposed warehouse/distribution buildings will fill a vacant, under-utilized parcel and enhance the existing industrial area along 9th Street and the general area within the southwestern portion of the City. Approval of the proposed building will permit the area to develop as a General Industrial (GI) District as specified in the General Plan and Development Code. The development of warehouse/distribution buildings enhances our Premier Community Status by providing a well- designed warehouse building that is complementary to the surrounding warehouse distribution and manufacturing uses in the surrounding area providing additional employment opportunities for our residents and the region. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. To date, no written correspondence, phone calls, or in person inquiries have been received regarding the project notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Overall Site Plan Exhibit B - Detail Site Plan (Building A) Exhibit C - Detail Site Plan (Building B) Exhibit D - Detail Site Plan (Building C) Exhibit E - Floor Plans Exhibit F - Roof Plans Exhibit G - Building Elevations Exhibit H - Landscape Plans Exhibit I - Conceptual Grading Plan and Sections Exhibit J - Design Review Committee Comments/Action (October 15, 2019) Exhibit K - Initial Study Parts 2 and 3 with Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit L - Staff Report for Planning Commission (January 8, 2020) – Continuance Exhibit M - Comments Letter – South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Exhibit N - Responses to Comments (prepared by the Applicant’s Environmental Consultant) Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2018-00912 Draft Resolution of Approval for Minor Exception DRC2019-00205 019 019 CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V 888PROPERTY LINE91241099S11°23'18"E9910991187101059th AvenuePROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEN00°02'50"E S89°54'49"ES89°56'50"EN00°02'50"E N89°55'49"WTTCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVT "NO PARKING" FIRE LANE - REFER TO DETAIL1-IN TRUCK COURT, THE ROADWAY SHALL BE PAINTED WITH 5-INCH REDSTRIPES TO DESIGNATE THE 26' WIDE DIMENSION OF THE FIRE APPARATUSACCESS ROAD. WORDS "FIRE LANE" SHALL BE STENCILED AT EACH END OFTHE FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD IN TRUCK COURT AND AT INTERVALSOF 150 FEET OR LESS. THE LETTERS SHALL BE WHITE, 2 FEET IN HEIGHTWITH A 3-INCH STROKE - typical1STANDARD CURBNOTE:ALL CURBING OUTLINING ACCESS AREAS SHALL BE PAINTED RED OR PAINT REDPAVEMENT MARKINGS. WHITE LETTERING SHALL BE A MIN. OF 3" HIGH, READING "FIRELANE NO PARKING/TOW AWAY ZONE" AND SHALL BE PLACED EVERY 50' OR PORTIONTHEREOF, ON TOP OF DESIGNATED CURBINGNOTE:THE SIGN SHALL BE SECURELY MOUNTED FACING THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ANDCLEARLY VISIBLE TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC ENTERING THE DESIGNATED AREA. SIGNSSHALL BE REFLECTORIZED BAKED PORCELAIN ON GALVANIZED STEEL AND INSTALLEDAS NOTED IN THE GUIDELINES FOR FIRE LANE SIGN MOUNTINGRED BORDER3" MIN. LETTERSRED ON WHITEREFLECTORIZED BAKEDPORCELAIN ONGALVANIZED STEEL1 1/2" GALVANIZED POST12" DIAMETERCONCRETE FOOTING2" MIN. LETTERSRED ON WHITE1/2" MIN. LETTERSRED ON WHITERED PAINT (SHOWN DASHED)SLOPESLOPE7'-0"2'-0" 3"6"1" RAD IUS 6"VEHICLES TOWEDAT OWNER'SEXPENSE15.24.080NOPARKINGEMERGENCYVEHICLE LANE1'-6"2'-0"11126'-0"30'-0"26'-0" 30'-0"26'-0"30'-0"26'-0"FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANEFIRE LANEACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVELFIRE HYDRANT; typical - REFER TO FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)CONCRETE - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGSLANDSCAPE - REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGSA MINIMUM UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF 26'-0", CLEAR TO SKY,FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD.KNOX BOX, SURFACE MOUNTED AT 48" MAX. A.F.F.2FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION PER FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS - PROTECTWITH BOLLARDS WHERE REQUIRED, REFER TO DETAIL 21 / A-104322222222PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY444BUILDING A - REFER TOENLARGED SITE PLAN A-101BUILDING B - REFER TOENLARGED SITE PLAN A-102BUILDING C - REFER TOENLARGED SITE PLAN A-1032-WATER QUALITY BASIN - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGSLANDSCAPE BERM AND BIOSWALE - REFER TO CIVIL ANDLANDSCAPE DRAWINGS3HR RATED WALL AND OPENINGS 2(E) FENCE TO REMAIN; COVER AND PROTECT AS REQUIRED55.PROPOSED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS; UNDERSEPARATE PERMIT6(E) SITE WALLS TO REMAIN; COVER AND PROTECT AS REQUIRED722...7776221. CURBS TO BE PAINTED RED AND LABELED "NO PARKING/ FIRE LANE" PER THECITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS - AS SHOWNPER PLAN.2. ALL PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS AND BUILDINGS, BOTH EXISTING AND3. PROPOSED, ARE TO BE VERIFIED WITH CIVIL DRAWINGS.4. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DRAWINGWITH CIVIL DRAWINGS. CONTACT ARCHITECT IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST.5. TEMPORARY ACCESS ROADWAYS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED PERTHE DIRECTION OF THE CITY OF RIALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT.6. IDENTIFICATION AND POSTING OF REQUIRED FIRE LANES SHALL BE PROVIDEDAS DIRECTED BY THE ASSIGNED FIRE INSPECTOR.7. PROVIDE SIGNAGE SAYING "NOT AN ENTRANCE" OR DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE ATNON-ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES POINTING TOWARDS THE ACCESSIBLEENTRANCES.UNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030SITE PLAN & FIRE ACCESS PLANLEGENDKEY NOTESFIRE LANE SIGNAGECURB DETAIL12FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-100.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:30 PM SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"SITE PLAN & FIRE ACCESSPLANA-100A-100.DWG18076.00IL / KSGENERAL NOTESExhibit A020020 1. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR SITE DIMENSIONS METES AND BOUNDS, GRADING,PAVING, DRAINAGE AND HORIZONTAL CONTROLS.2. REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR HARDSCAPE, PLANTING FINE GRADINGAND SOILS PREPARATION.3. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR INFORMATION REGARDING GRADING,BEARING, VALUES, COMPACTION, PAVING SECTIONS, CONCRETE MIX DESIGNAND SOIL AMENDMENT INFORMATION.4. VERIFY THAT ALL GRADES AND CLEARANCE ON SITE COMPLY WITHREQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AS SHOWN ON ALLARCHITECTURAL AND CIVIL PLANS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.5. CURBS TO BE PAINTED RED AND LABELED "NO PARKING/ FIRE LANE" PER THE SANJOAQUIN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS - AS SHOWN PER PLAN.6. ALL PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS AND BUILDINGS, BOTH EXISTING ANDPROPOSED, ARE TO BE VERIFIED WITH CIVIL DRAWINGS.7.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DRAWING WITHCIVIL DRAWINGS. CONTACT ARCHITECT IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST.8. TEMPORARY ACCESS ROADWAYS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED PER THEDIRECTION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT.9. IDENTIFICATION AND POSTING OF REQUIRED FIRE LANES SHALL BE PROVIDED ASDIRECTED BY THE ASSIGNED FIRE INSPECTOR.10. PROVIDE BUMPER STOPS FOR ALL PARKING STALLS ADJACENT TO A SIDEWALKOR BUILDING. REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS.ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVELFIRE HYDRANT; typical - REFER TO FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)CONCRETE - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGSLANDSCAPE - REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGSA MINIMUM UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF 20'-0", CLEAR TO SKY,FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD. ALL OUTSIDETURNING RADII SHOWN ARE 41'-0". ALL INSIDE TURNING RADIISHOWN ARE 21'-0".CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH LIGHT BROOM FINISH - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGSTYPICAL PARKING STALL 9'-0" X 17'-0" WITH 2'-0" BUMPER OVERHANG(SHOWN DASHED) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.LANDSCAPE ISLAND - REFER TO 26 / A-104 - typicalFIRE HYDRANT LOCATION PER FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS - PROTECT WITHBOLLARDS, WHERE REQUIRED. REFER TO 21 / A-104ZERO CURB FACE AT ACCESSIBLE ACCESS AISLESTYPICAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL WITH ALL SYMBOLS, SIGNS, RAMPS ASREQUIRED TO MEET TITLE 24 AND ADA REQUIREMENTS10123456789LINE OF 2'-0" PARKING OVERHANG (SHOWN DASHED)ADA ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS AND4 / G-004BICYCLE RACK - REFER TO 17 / G-004CURB AND GUTTER - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGSCLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING STALLS - PAINT, IN THE PAINT USED FOR STALLSTRIPING, THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERS SUCH THAT THE LOWER EDGE OFTHE LAST WORD ALIGNS WITH THE END OF THE STALL STRIPING AND ISVISIBLE BENEATH A PARKED VEHICLE:CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV14121516111360'-0" DEEP CONCRETE APRON WITH MEDIUM BROOM FINISH AT TRUCKDOCKS - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGSPROPOSED MONUMENT SIGNFUTURE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION - PROVIDE CONDUIT - REFERTO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS1718EMPLOYEE BREAK AREA WITH OVERHEAD LATTICE - REFER TO SHEET A-105FOR DETAILS19TRASH AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURE1typical2typicalBUILDING SETBACK; VARIANCE TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITYOF RANCHO CUCAMONGATRANSFORMER - REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS6typical7typical8typical11'-6"1113typical14typical151826'-0"11'-3 1/4"46'-6"60'-0"3'-6"26'-0"9'-0"209'-8"6'-11 3/4"43'-0"60'-8"6'-2"4'-0"3'-0"17'-0"30'-0"5'-9 3/4"19'-0"26'-0"9'-0"typical17'-0" typical7'-0"typical19'-0" typical FOR CONTINUOUS ACCESSIBLEPATH OF TRAVEL SEE SHEET A-10017A-10512AA-1054A-105280'-0"8PROPER99911875PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEN00°02'50"E S89°54'49"ES89°56'50"ETCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV3typical 2A-10612A-10512BA-10512A-105A-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-SECTA-ELEVA-DETLA-GLAZA-FLORA-DOOA-WALLA-FURNA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNO45'-0" SETBACKBUILDING AHEAVY DUTY SEMI-TRAILER WHEEL STOP; INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONWATER QUALITY BASIN - REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS10109BUILDING B - REFER TO A-102LANDSCAPE BERM AND BIOSWALE - REFER TO CIVIL ANDLANDSCAPE DRAWINGS4A-106SIM.45'-0"SETBACK125typicaltypicaltypicaltypicaltypicaltypical20SEMI-TRAILER PARKING STALL; PROVIDE DOLLY PADS AS REQUIRED - REFERTO CIVIL DRAWINGS (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)218'-0" HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALL; REFER TO CIVIL AND STRUCTURALDRAWINGS228'-0" HIGH TUBE STEEL ROLLING GATE WITH KNOX BOX (DESIGN BUILD);PROVIDE CONDUIT AND JUNCTION BOX AT ALL GATE LOCATIONS FOR FUTUREELECTRICAL OPERATIONS232420typical12'-0"19typical21typical22typical14'-4 3/4"VARIES17typicaltypical7'-6 11/16"STEEL SWING GATE WITH KNOX BOX (DESIGN BUILD); PROVIDE CONDUIT ANDJUNCTION BOX AT ALL GATE LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE ELECTRICALOPERATIONSLANDSCAPE DIAMOND CURB; REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS2526ART FEATURE, SUPPLIED BY OWNDER; PROVIDE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT FORFUTURE LIGHTING - REFER TO CIVIL AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS27DECORATIVE CONCRETE PAVING WITH TOPCAST #5 FINISH; COLOR TO BELIGHT GREY TO MATCH P-2 WITH 2'-6" BORDER COLOR TO MATCH P-3 -REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS289th AvenueCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING A25typical12'-0" HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALL; REFER TO CIVIL AND STRUCTURALDRAWINGS12'-0" HIGH TUBE STEEL ROLLING GATE WITH KNOX BOX (DESIGN BUILD);PROVIDE CONDUIT AND JUNCTION BOX AT ALL GATE LOCATIONS FOR FUTUREELECTRICAL OPERATIONSUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-101.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:31 PM BUILDING A SITE PLANA-101A-101.DWG18076.00IL / KSBUILDING A SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"GENERAL NOTESLEGENDKEY NOTESKEY PLANExhibit B021021 A-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-SECTA-ELEVA-DETLA-GLAZA-FLORA-DOOA-WALLA-FURNA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOFOR CONTINUOUSACCESSIBLE PATH OFTRAVEL SEE SHEET A-101FOR CONTINUOUSACCESSIBLE PATHOF TRAVEL SEESHEET A-1014A-1071A-1052A-107CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV8 88PROPERTY LINE1099S11°23'18"E999118710PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE S89°56'50"EN00°02'50"E TTCLEAN AI VANPOOL 1typical2typical3typical5A-1096typical7typical8typical9typical1010111213typical14typical1517typical18typical19typicalNOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TO-A-101BUILDING BBUILDING C - REFER TO A-10345'-0" SETBACK45'-0"SETBACK5typical5typical6typicaltypicaltypical4'-6"26'-0"17'-0"6'-0"466'-0"6'-0"17'-0"30'-0"17'-0"2'-0"5'-6"26'-0"7'-6 11/16"203'-6"4'-0"9'-1"17'-0"30'-0"6'-0" 60'-0"55'-1"18typicaltypical21typical22typicaltypical3'-7"12'-0"20typical132026typical12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"50'-7 3/4"60'-0"6'-8 3/4"VARIES17A-10617A-106SIM.MIRROR9th AvenueCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING BUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-102.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:31 PM BUILDING B SITE PLANA-102A-102.DWG18076.00IL / KSSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"BUILDING B SITE PLANKEY PLANExhibit C022022 CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V 8912410910PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEN00°02'50"E N89°55'49"WT3A-1085A-10825A-10824A-10814A-10914A-1091typical2typical3typical5typical5typical6typical7typical8typical9typical1010typicaltypical11typical12typical13typical14typical151516typical17typical17typical18typical18typical19typical45'-0"SETBACK16'-11 3/4" SETBACK 4'-6"26'-0"17'-0"6'-0"476'-0"6'-0"17'-0"47'-7"60'-0"9'-11 3/4" 6'-0" 235'-0"4'-6"9'-6"17'-0"30'-0"NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TO-A-101BUILDING C53'-10"±54'-8"±62'-6"60'-0"60'-0"20typical3'-7"12'-0"26typical202323typical24typical28typical275A-11017A-10617A-106SIM.MIRROR23typical4A-1109th AvenueCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING CUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-103.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:31 PM BUILDING C SITE PLANA-103A-103.DWG18076.00IL / KSSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"ENLARGED PLANKEY PLANExhibit D023023 .54321ABCDEFG54321ABCDEFGD.9D.950'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"40'-0"40'-0"280'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0" 208'-0"1'-6"25'-8"24'-5"24'-7"24'-5"26'-0"24'-5"24'-7"24'-5"26'-8"26'-8"26'-8"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"25'-7"22'-5"22'-4"31'-0"27'-2"27'-2"31'-0"25'-6"25'-7"25'-6"10'-0"25'-6"25'-7"25'-6"25'-8"1'-6"25'-8"21'-3"21'-4"21'-3"26'-0"21'-3"21'-4"21'-3"25'-8"1'-6" 52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0" 1'-6" 208'-0"1'-6"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"40'-0"40'-0"280'-0"N / EN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EN / EN / EN / EN / EEXIT1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTER OF PANEL JOINTS OR FACE OF PANEL UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE.2. A 4A60BC FIRE EXTINGUISHER TO BE PROVIDED AT EACH MAN DOOR OFWAREHOUSE. ADDITIONAL FIRE EXTINGUISHERS TO BE ADDED PRIOR TOOCCUPANCY3. ACCESS DOORS FOR ELECTRICAL ROOMS, PUMP ROOMS OR FIRE CONTROLROOMS MUST HAVE ROOM DESCRIPTION SIGNAGE.4. EXIT DOORS ARE INDICATED ON THIS PLAN AS REQUIRED EXITS TO COMPLY WITHTHE 400' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE PER 2016 CBC 1017.2.2.5. PER 2016 CBC SECTION 11B-206.4.1 EXCEPTION #2, EXIT DOORS THAT ARE INEXCESS OF THOSE REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 10, AND WHICH ARE MORE THAN 24INCHES ABOVE GRADE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE. SUCH DOORSSHALL HAVE SIGNS WARNING THAT THEY ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE. WARNING SIGNSSHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 11B-703.5.6. PER 2016 CBC SECTION 1021.1 EXCEPTION #3, EXIT ACCESS STAIRWAY ANDRAMPS THAT COMPLY WITH EXCEPTION #3 OR #4 OF SECTION 1016.1 SHALL BEPERMITTED TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF APPROVED INDEPENDENTEXITS REQUIRED BY TABLE 1021.1 ON EACH STORY. THIS BUILDING FALLSUNDER EXCEPTION #4 ON SECTION 1016.1.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO THE SLAB DUETO HEAVY LOADING DURING CONSTRUCTION.8. REFER TO THE ELECTRICAL POWER PLAN FOR ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGN.9. ALL STEEL NOT EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE TO RECEIVE ONE COAT OF GRAY RUSTINHIBITIVE PRIMER. ALL WELDS AND ANY CONSTRUCTION IDENTIFICATION MARKSTO BE TOUCHED UP WITH GRAY PRIMER.10. EXTERIOR FACE OF PANEL TO RECEIVE A FLOOR SLAB FINISHED AND PREPAREDFOR PAINT; PAINT COLOR PER BUILDING ELEVATIONS; ALL EXTERIOR PANELJOINTS TO BE CAULKED.11. INSIDE FACE OF CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELS TO BE SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH,CAULKED AND PAINTED. ALL LIFT POINTS TO BE COVERED BY CONCRETE PATCHAND FINISHED TO MATCH ADJACENT PANEL.12. PAINT INSIDE OF ALL WAREHOUSE WALLS WHITE FROM FLOOR TO UNDERSIDE OFWALL INSULATION - ONE COAT TO COVER.13. STEEL WALL ANGLES AND DOCK EDGE CHANNELS TO RECEIVE PRIME AND FINISHPAINT.14. FIRE PUMP ROOM AND ELECTRICAL ROOM WALLS TO BE PAINTED WITH ONECOAT TO COVER OF WHITE PAINT.15. CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELS TO BE PAINTED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFCONDUITS.16. AT THE DOCK DOORS, PROVIDE J-BOX W/ PULL STRING IN PANELS FOR FUTUREDOCK LEVELERS. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DOCK LEVELERKNOCKOUT PANEL INFORMATION.17. THE CONCRETE SLAB TO RECEIVE A HARD MACHINE BURNISHED FINISH.18. SLAB SHALL BE COATED WITH ONE COAT OF LAPIDOLITH / DUST PROOFER, ORAPPROVED EQUAL.INDICATES REQUIRED EXIT SIGNAGE - SIGNAGE TO READ "EXIT" -REFER TO DETAIL 5 / G-005REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE EXIT BASED ON TOTAL BUILDINGOCCUPANCYFACE OF PANELPANEL JOINTN / EINDICATES REQUIRED DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE TO NEARESTACCESSIBLE EXIT (PAINTED ON DOOR) - REFER TO DOOR TYPE "A"ON A-601INDICATES REQUIRED EXIT ROUTE SIGNAGE - SIGNAGE TO READ"EXIT STAIR DOWN" - REFER TO DETAIL 5 / G-005E S DP.J.F.O.P.20'-0"10'-0"P.J.P.J.P.J.P.J.P.J.P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J.P.J.P.J.P.J.P.J.P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P.3A-2012A-2014A-2011A-2015A-40120A-401P.J. P.J.76519A-40119A-40219A-4027A-401EXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:25 OCC. X 0.2 = 5.0"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 42"25 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXITN / ELOCATION OF FUTURE OFFICE, REFER TO STRUCTURAL SHEETFOR 2ND FLOOR STRUCTURAL FRAMING EMBEDS AND FOOTINGS;PROVIDE 15 MIL MINIMUM OF STEGOWRAP VAPOR BARRIERUNDER DESIGNATED OFFICE AREA ONLY; REFER TO STRUCTURALDRAWINGS3typical8typical8POUR STRIP - REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSCONCRETE SLAB, JOINTS SHALL BE CAULKED WITH EPOXY SEALANT (MM80)AT SPEED BAYS FROM GRIDS 1 TO 3 AND D TO E; REFER TO STRUCTURALDRAWINGSXDOOR TAG; REFER TO DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR TYPES ONA-601 - typicalROOF DRAIN; REFER TO 25B / A-502 - COORDINATE W/ DESIGN BUILDPLUMBING CONTRACTORELECTRICAL ROOM; REFER TO DESIGN BUILD ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FORROOM LAYOUT321STRUCTURAL COLUMN - REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS;PAINT UP TO 14'-0" A.F.F. WITH YELLOW HAZARD PAINT - typical4CONCRETE SLAB - REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS1typical4typical5'-0" typical 10'-0"typicalLONG-TERM BICYCLE RACK - REFER TO 17 / G-0049'-0" x 10'-0" KNOCK-OUT PANELS - REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS59'-0"9'-0"9'-0"typical4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"2'-0" 2'-0"2'-0"6typical732'-0" CLEAR HEIGHTREFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS221423442222522E S DE S DE S DE S DE S DE S DE S D3'-0"typical3'-0"DOOR9th AvenueCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING AMIRRORSIM.EXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:13 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.6"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"13 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITBUILDING A FLOOR PLAN &EXITING PLANA-111A-111.DWG18076.00KS / ILBUILDING A FLOOR PLAN & EXITING PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"GENERAL NOTESLEGENDKEY NOTESUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-111.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:33 PM KEYPLANExhibit E024024 ABCDEFG5432154321HJKLABCDEFGHJKL466'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"20'-0"203'-6" 55'-0"60'-0"50'-0"38'-6"466'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"20'-0"203'-6" 55'-0"60'-0"50'-0"38'-6"3.93.9N / EN / EN / E3A-2022A-2024A-20223422E S DE S DE S D1A-202N / EE S DN / EE S D22N / EE S D2N / E2E S DN / E2E S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EE S DN / EE S D2521124444444442231'-6"25'-8"25'-8"25'-8"25'-8"25'-8"26'-0"25'-8"25'-8"25'-8"26'-0"25'-8"25'-8"25'-8"26'-0"25'-8"25'-8"25'-8"25'-8"1'-6"F.O.P. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. P.J. F.O.P. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. F.O.P. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. F.O.P. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. F.O.P. F.O.P. 1'-6"25'-8"38'-4"10'-0"20'-0"10'-0"19'-2"19'-2"31'-0"27'-2"F.O.P.P.J.P.J.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.1'-6"27'-2"31'-0"21'-7"21'-7"21'-7"25'-7"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"25'-7"22'-3"26'-3"26'-3"31'-0"27'-2"1'-6"1'-6"27'-2"31'-0"19'-2"19'-2"10'-0"20'-0"10'-0"19'-2"19'-2"25'-8"1'-6"1'-6" F.O.P. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. P.J. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. P.J.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.P.J.P.J.P.J.1typical3typical4typical6typical78typical5A-4015A-4017A-4017A-40119A-4013'-0"DOOR3'-0"typical54'-0"9'-0"2'-0"typical.232'-0" CLEAR HEIGHT REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"20'-0"466'-0"38'-6"50'-0"60'-0"55'-0" 203'-6"20'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"30'-0"466'-0"8A-40219A-4029th AvenueCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING BFOR typical NOTES, KEYNOTES, LEGEND AND DIMENSIONS REFER TO A-111SIM.typicalMIRRORSIM.MIRRORSIM.19A-401SIM.EXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:25 OCC. X 0.2 = 5.0"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 42"25 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:25 OCC. X 0.2 = 5.0"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 42"25 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:15 OCC. X 0.2 = 3"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"15 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:12 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.4"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"12 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXIT3A-4023A-4023A-4022A-4022A-4023A-4023A-402A-112.DWG18076.00KSBUILDING B FLOOR PLAN &EXITING PLANA-112BUILDING B FLOOR PLAN & EXITING PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"GENERAL NOTESUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-112.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:33 PM KEY PLAN025025 ABCDEFGHJKL5432154321ABCDEFGHJKL476'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"30'-0"235'-0" 60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"55'-0" 235'-0" 60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"55'-0"476'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"30'-0"3.93.99th Avenue476'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"30'-0"25'-8"23'-6"26'-6"26'-6"26'-0"26'-6"26'-6"26'-6"26'-0"26'-6"26'-6"26'-6"26'-0"26'-6"26'-6"26'-3 1/2"25'-8"25'-8"21'-6"21'-6"10'-0"20'-0"10'-0"21'-8"19'-3 3/4"27'-1"31'-0"27'-2"1'-6"27'-2"1'-6"31'-0"21'-11 1/2"21'-11 1/2"10'-0"20'-10"25'-7"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"25'-7"20'-10"10'-0"19'-3 1/2"19'-3 1/2"31'-0"27'-2"27'-2"1'-6"31'-0"27'-1"27'-0"10'-0"20'-0"10'-0"27'-0"27'-1"25'-8"1'-6" F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J.F.O.P.F.O.P.P.J.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.F.O.P.P.J.P.J.P.J.P.J.F.O.PF.O.PF.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. F.O.P. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J.F.O.PF.O.PF.O.PF.O.PF.O.PF.O.PF.O.PF.O.PP.J.P.J.11334444444444222522222222224'-0"9'-0"2'-0"20A-40219A-40117A-4027A-4023A-4025A-401N / EE S DN / EN / EN / EN / EE S DN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:25 OCC. X 0.2 = 5"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 42"25 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXITN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:19 OCC. X 0.2 = 3.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"19 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EE S DEXITN / EE S DN / EE S D1typical.23typical4typical6typical5typical32'-0" CLEAR HEIGHT REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS3A-2034A-2032A-2031A-2031'-6"5'-4"F.O.P. F.O.P.F.O.P4'-6"F.O.P. CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING CFOR typical NOTES, KEYNOTES, LEGEND AND DIMENSIONS REFER TO A-11119A-40119A-402SIM.SIM.typicalSIM.SIM.5A-4024A-402SIM.EXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:25 OCC. X 0.2 = 5"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 42"25 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITN / EE S DEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:14 OCC. X 0.2 = 2.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"14 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXITEXIT WIDTH REQUIRED:19 OCC. X 0.2 = 3.8"EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 36"19 OCC.NOT AN ACCESSIBLE EXIT3A-402SIM.3A-402SIM.2A-402SIM.UNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-113.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:33 PM BUILDING C FLOOR PLAN &EXITING PLANA-113A-113.DWG18076.00KSSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING C FLOOR PLAN & EXITING PLANKEY PLANGENERAL NOTESExhibit E026026 54321ABCDEFG54321ABCDEFG208'-0" 52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"280'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"40'-0"40'-0"280'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"50'-0"40'-0"40'-0"208'-0" 52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"D.9D.9RIDGE LINE20'-0"24'-0"8'-0"16'-0"24'-0"12'-0"12'-0"24'-0"16'-0"8'-0"24'-0"20'-0"22'-0"24'-0"4'-0"14'-0"24'-0"3'-0" typical 1. CLASS "A", 4-PLY ASPHALTIC BUILT-UP ROOF SYSTEM WITH FIFTEEN (15) YEARMANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY BY GAF N-B-3-M OR APPROVED EQUAL (INTECPERMAGLAS, JOHNS MANVILLE). ROOF COVERING SHALL COMPLY WITH COOLROOF ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS. ROOF COVERING TOBE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS ANDINSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR HIGH WIND AREAS.2. REFER TO SHEET A-502 FOR INFORMATION AND DETAILS FOR ROOF MEMBRANEWHETHER SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED OR NOT.3. ROOF SLOPE IS TO BE 1/4" PER 1'-0" MINIMUM AT ALL LOCATIONS UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE - typical. REFER TO STRUCTURAL ROOF FRAMING PLANFOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ROOF ELEVATIONS.4. DIMENSIONS SHOWN FOR SKYLIGHT AND EXHAUST FAN LOCATIONS ARE ONCENTER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE - typical.5. ALL HVAC EQUIPMENT REQUIRED IS TO BE PROVIDED BY A DESIGN BUILDCONTRACTOR UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT. COORDINATE ALL PENETRATIONSWITH STRUCTURAL AND ROOFING REQUIREMENTS SO AS NOT TO VOID THEROOFING WARRANTY.6. ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS ARE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 1'-6" FROM EACH OTHERAND A MINIMUM OF 1'-6" FROM ROOF CANTS OR CRICKETS. PENETRATIONSARE NOT TO BE PLACED IN VALLEYS.7. DESIGN BUILD PLUMBING CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY ALL ROOF DRAIN,LEADER, SCUPPER AND OVERFLOW SIZES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ANDNOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY REQUIRED REVISIONS.8. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THAT THE PARAPET RETURN WING WALLS ARE CLEAROF THE ROOF SYSTEM.9. PROVIDE PREFABRICATED FLASHING REGLET CORNERS FOR ALL INSIDE /OUTSIDE CORNERS.10. SMOKE AND HEAT REMOVAL NOT REQUIRED PER SECTION 910.2 EXCEPTIONSTHIS BUILDING WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH EARLY SUPPRESSION FAST RESPONSE(ESFR) SPRINKLER.11. PROVIDE MINIMUM 1/2" WALKWAY PADS AT ALL SIDES OF ROOF HATCH ANDON ACCESS SIDE OF ANY ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT.12. PROVIDE HOSE-BIB ABOVE THE FUTURE OFFICE AREA; FINAL LOCATION TO BEFIELD VERIFIED AND CONFIRMED WITH OWNER.13. ADDRESS PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED ON ROOF TOP WITH 3' TALL AND 6" THICKALPHANUMERIC CHARACTERS; COLOR TO CONTRAST BACKGROUND WITHWHEATHERRESISTANT MATERIAL.6ROOF HATCH DOOR TAG - REFER TO SHEET A-601EXHAUST FAN - REFER TO MECHANICAL DRAWINGS - typicalINTERIOR ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW SCUPPER, REFER TOPLUMBING PLANS FOR SIZING. INTERIOR ROOF DRAINS TO BE CASTIRON - REFER TO DETAIL 6 / A-502SOLAR READY AREASINGLE DOME ACRYLIC SKYLIGHTS REFER TOSKYLIGHT SCHEDULE AND DETAIL 5 / A-5022METAL CANOPY BELOWU-FACTORSHGCICC-ES #ULKINGSPAN(FORMERLY BRISTOLITE)VLTMODEL #QUASAR PRISMATIC4896-AL-CM-WPM-MFUPLOAD LIFTIMPACTRESISTANCEWARRANTYUNIT WEIGHTHAIL RATING0.990.5372%3177---90 MPH200 LBS10 YEARS53 LBSCLASS IVSINGLEDOMEKINGSPAN CONTACT:DAVID SPRIGGSO: 800.854.8618 EXT. 454C: 714.728.4543DSPRIGGS@BRISTOLITE.COMTOTAL ROOF AREA (EXCLUDING SKYLIGHTS): 49,016 SF - (34x32 SF) = 47,928 SFFUTURE SOLAR AREA REQUIRED:15% OF ROOF AREA(SECTION 110.10 B, 2016 CALIFORNIAENERGY CODE)0.15 x 47,928 SF= 7,190 SFFUTURE SOLAR AREA PROVIDED:7,584 SF(REFER TO ROOF PLAN FOR LOCATION)TOTAL ROOF AREA:49,016 SFNUMBER OF SKYLIGHTS PROVIDED: 34SKYLIGHT RATIO PROVIDED(# OF SKYLIGHTS x 32 sf / ROOF AREA): 2.22%1MECHANICAL ZONE FOR FUTUREREFLECTIVE CAP SHEET - LOCATION OF "GLASKAP CR" REFLECTIVECAP SHEET BY JOHNS MANVILLE AT OFFICE CORNERS.INSTALLATION OVER BUILT-UP ROOF PER MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS (INITIAL CRRC:l 0.83, 3-YEAR AGED CRRC: 0.77)62133PARAPET CAP ABOVEtypicaltypical2typical4ROOF STRUCTURE BELOW (SHOWN DASHED);REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS - typical4typical10'-2"12'-0"24'-0"12'-0"6'-0"24'-0"20'-0"4'-0"36'-0"14'-0"9th AvenueCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING A158'-0"typical8'-0" typical 8'-0"8'-0"A-131.DWG18076.00ILBUILDING A ROOF PLANA-131BUILDING A ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"GENERAL NOTESLEGENDSKYLIGHT SCHEDULESKYLIGHT TABULATIONFUTURE SOLARKEY NOTESUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-131.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:34 PM KEY PLANExhibit F027027 U-FACTORSHGCICC-ES #ULKINGSPAN(FORMERLY BRISTOLITE)VLTMODEL #QUASAR PRISMATIC4896-AL-CM-WPM-MFUPLOAD LIFTIMPACTRESISTANCEWARRANTYUNIT WEIGHTHAIL RATING0.990.5372%3177---90 MPH200 LBS10 YEARS53 LBSCLASS IVSINGLEDOMEKINGSPAN CONTACT:DAVID SPRIGGSO: 800.854.8618 EXT. 454C: 714.728.4543DSPRIGGS@BRISTOLITE.COMABCDEFG5432154321HJKLABCDEFGHJKL466'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"20'-0"203'-6" 55'-0"60'-0"50'-0"38'-6"466'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"20'-0"203'-6" 55'-0"60'-0"50'-0"38'-6"3.93.921'-0"17'-6"2'-6"20'-0"20'-0"7'-6"12'-6"20'-0"20'-0"7'-6"12'-6"42'-6"12'-0"32'-0"8'-0"24'-0"28'-0"4'-0"32'-0"16'-0"16'-0"32'-0"4'-0"28'-0"24'-0"8'-0"32'-0"12'-0"20'-0"24'-0"8'-0"24'-0"28'-0"4'-0"26'-0"1232333422TOTAL ROOF AREA (EXCLUDING SKYLIGHTS): 82,079 SF - (50x32 SF) = 80,479 SFFUTURE SOLAR AREA REQUIRED:15% OF ROOF AREA(SECTION 110.10 B, 2016 CALIFORNIAENERGY CODE)0.15 x 80,479 SF= 12,072 SFFUTURE SOLAR AREA PROVIDED:12,288 SF(REFER TO ROOF PLAN FOR LOCATION)TOTAL ROOF AREA:82,079 SFNUMBER OF SKYLIGHTS PROVIDED: 50SKYLIGHT RATIO PROVIDED(# OF SKYLIGHTS x 32 sf / ROOF AREA): 1.95%FOR typical NOTES, KEYNOTES, LEGEND AND DIMENSIONS REFER TO A-1319th AvenueCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING Btypicaltypicaltypicaltypicaltypicaltypicaltypicaltypical1typicaltypicaltypical6192'-0"typical8'-0" typical 6'-0"6'-0"RIDGE LINEBUILDING B ROOF PLANA-132BUILDING B ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"A-132.DWG18076.00IL / KSSKYLIGHT TABULATIONFILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-132.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:34 PM UNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030GENERAL NOTESSKYLIGHT SCHEDULEFUTURE SOLARKEY PLAN028028 U-FACTORSHGCICC-ES #ULKINGSPAN(FORMERLY BRISTOLITE)VLTMODEL #QUASAR PRISMATIC4896-AL-CM-WPM-MFUPLOAD LIFTIMPACTRESISTANCEWARRANTYUNIT WEIGHTHAIL RATING0.990.5372%3177---90 MPH200 LBS10 YEARS53 LBSCLASS IVSINGLEDOMEKINGSPAN CONTACT:DAVID SPRIGGSO: 800.854.8618 EXT. 454C: 714.728.4543DSPRIGGS@BRISTOLITE.COMABCDEFGHJKL5432154321ABCDEFGHJKL476'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"30'-0"235'-0" 60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"55'-0" 235'-0" 60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"55'-0"476'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"30'-0"3.93.9A-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNOA-SECTA-ELEVA-DETLA-GLAZA-FLORA-DOOA-WALLA-FURNA-ANNOA-ANNOA-ANNO25'-0"20'-0"15'-0"5'-0"20'-0"20'-0"15'-0"5'-0"20'-0"20'-0"15'-0"5'-0"20'-0"30'-0"4'-0"32'-0"16'-0"16'-0"32'-0"4'-0"28'-0"24'-0"8'-0"32'-0"16'-0"16'-0"32'-0"32'-0"20'-0"12'-0"32'-0"8'-0"24'-0"11223334typicaltypicaltypicaltypicaltypical16'-0"10'-0"16'-0"10'-0"24'-0"4'-0"TOTAL ROOF AREA (EXCLUDING SKYLIGHTS): 96,990 SF - (60x32 SF) = 95,070 SFFUTURE SOLAR AREA REQUIRED:15% OF ROOF AREA(SECTION 110.10 B, 2016 CALIFORNIAENERGY CODE)0.15 x 95,070 SF= 14,261 SFFUTURE SOLAR AREA PROVIDED:14,720 SF(REFER TO ROOF PLAN FOR LOCATION)TOTAL ROOF AREA:96,990 SFNUMBER OF SKYLIGHTS PROVIDED: 60SKYLIGHT RATIO PROVIDED(# OF SKYLIGHTS x 32 sf / ROOF AREA): 1.98%184'-0"typical8'-0" typical 6'-0"6'-0"9th AvenueCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV TTTBUILDING CFOR typical NOTES, KEYNOTES, LEGEND AND DIMENSIONS REFER TO A-131typicaltypicaltypical2typicalRIDGE LINEA-133.DWG18076.00KS / ILBUILDING C ROOF PLANA-133BUILDING C ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"GENERAL NOTESSKYLIGHT SCHEDULESKYLIGHT TABULATIONFUTURE SOLARUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-133.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:34 PM KEY PLAN029029 ABCDEFG54321ABCDEFG54321XXXX1. SAFETY GLAZING SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER24 OF THE 2016 CBC.2. ILLUMINATED ADDRESS NUMBERS ON BUILDING ELEVATION AND ROOF PLAN (TOBE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE ACCESS STREET OR ROAD) PER THE COUNTY OFSAN JOAQUIN SECURITY SPECIFICATIONS.A. THE ADDRESS NUMBER OF EVERY COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHALL BEILLUMINATED DURING THE HOURS OF DARKNESS SO THAT IT SHALL BEEASILY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR PARKING LOT. THE NUMERALS INTHESE NUMBERS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT ANDBE OF A COLOR CONTRASTING TO THE BACKGROUND.3. THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELS WILL BE PREPARED PERPAINT MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS TO RECEIVE ONE COAT OF PRIMERAND ONE COLOR FINISH COAT OF EXTERIOR VINYL PAINT.4. THE BACK SIDE AND TOP OF ALL PERIMETER ROOF PARAPETS SHALL RECEIVEONE COAT OF ELASTOMERIC PAINT.5. EXTERIOR MAN DOORS, ROLL-UP DOORS AND HANDRAILS SHALL BE FINISHEDWITH AN ENAMEL PAINT TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE ADJACENT WALLS.6.PROTECT ALL UNPAINTED CONSTRUCTION & SURFACES PRIOR TO APPLICATIONOF PRIMER OR PAINT.VERTICAL LIFT DOCK DOOR - REFER TO DOOR SCHEDULEPAINTED METAL CANOPYALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEMLOUVER - REFER TO 8 / A-501PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELDOOR AND FRAME PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT BUILDING COLORSECTIONAL GRADE LEVEL DOOR - REFER TO DOOR SCHEDULECONCRETE STAIRS WITH TILT PANELS PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT BUILDINGCOLORROOF DRAIN DOWNSPOUT AND SCUPPERS - REFER TO 17 / A-502LIGHT FIXTURE - REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS123456789101112LINE OF ROOF BEYOND (SHOWN DASHED)A1/4" GLASS IN AF450 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM AS MANUFACTUREDBY ARCADIA·PROVIDE MO358 MULLIONS AS MANUFACTURE BY ARCADIA·PROVIDE SOLARBLUE GLASS AS MANUFACTURED BY PPG·ALUMINUM MULLIONS TO HAVE CLEAR ANODIZED FINISHBNOTE:UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL WINDOWS TO BE TYPE "A"TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL PANELFIELD COLORSHERWIN WILLIAMS / CREAMY / SW 7012TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL PANELACCENT COLORSHERWIN WILLIAMS / WORLDLY GRAY / SW 7043TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL PANELACCENT COLORSHERWIN WILLIAMS / LATTE / SW 6108P1P2P3TILT-UP CONCRETE SCREEN WALL PANELACCENT COLORSHERWIN WILLIAMS / TEA CHEST / SW 6103P4FUTURE TENANT SIGNAGE13ILLUMINATED BUILDING ADDRESS - REFER TO GENERAL NOTE #2 FORADDITIONAL INFORMATIONTILT-UP CONCRETE SCREEN WALL PANELACCENT COLORSHERWIN WILLIAMS / ROOKWOOD DARK BROWN / SW 2808P51typical2typical3typical4typical5typical7typical8typical9typical10typical11typical12typical13typical9'-0" X 10'-0" KNOCK-OUT PANELS - REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS1414typical10typicalFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOOR11typicalFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOOR40'-6" 42'-6" 42'-6" 38'-0"40'-6"40'-6"C40'-0" 38'-0" 40'-0" 38'-0" 40'-0" 40'-0" 38'-0"NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TODETAIL2-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TO DETAIL2-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TO DETAIL2-10'-2"1A-3014A-3013A-30140'-0"2A-3017typical4A-2041A-2045A-2041A-204MIRROR2A-2046A-2041A-204MIRROR4A-204SIM.1A-204SIM.typicaltypical1A-302typical2A-302typical1A-305typical4A-304typical1A-303typical2A-303typical4A-303typical3A-303typical3A-304typical1A-304typical2A-304typical8typical6typicaltypicaltypical1A-3022A-3021A-3062A-306typical typical1A-3072A-307typicaltypical1A-3072A-307typicaltypical1A-3072A-307typicaltypical38'-0" 14'-0" 29'-11" 38'-0"3A-302typical2A-302typical3A-302typical2A-302typicalC1" INSULATED GLAZING UNITS IN ALUMINUM MULLION SYSTEM ASMANUFACTURED BY ARCADIA; ALUMINUM MULLIONS TO HAVECLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM FINISH1" INSULATED GLAZING UINTS IN TC470 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ASMANUFACTURED BY ARCADIA·PROVIDE TH480 MULLIONS AS MANUFACTURED BY ARCADIA·PROVIDE 1/4" SOLARBLUE GLASS AS MANUFACTURED BY VITRO, 1/2" AIRGAP, SOLARBAN 60 ON 1/4" CLEAR GLASS AS MANUFACTURED BY VITROD1/4" SPANDREL GLASS IN AF300 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ASMANUFACTURED BY ARCADIA·PROVIDE MO300 MULLIONS AS MANUFACTURE BY ARCADIA·PROVIDE SOLAR BLUE GLASS AS MANUFACTURED BY VITRO W/OPACICOAT BACKING1/4" GLASS IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM AS MANUFACTUREDBY ARCADIA; ALUMINUM MULLIONS TO HAVE CLEAR ANODIZEDALUMINUM FINISH1" INSULATED GLAZING UINTS IN 6" ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM ASMANUFACTURED BY ARCADIA·PROVIDE 6" MULLIONS AS MANUFACTURED BY ARCADIA·PROVIDE 1/4" SOLARBLUE GLASS AS MANUFACTURED BY VITRO, 1/2" AIRGAP, SOLARBAN 60 ON 1/4" CLEAR GLASS AS MANUFACTURED BY VITRO.·PROVIDE SPANDREL W/ OPACICOAT BACKING WHERE INDICATED BY LEGENDBB1/4" SPANDREL GLASS IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ASMANUFACTURED BY ARCADIA;ALUMINUM MULLIONS TO HAVE CLEARANODIZED ALUMINUM FINISHCBBtypicaltypicalBUILDING A EXTERIORELEVATIONSA-2014WEST ELEVATION3SOUTH ELEVATION2EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATIONGENERAL NOTESLEGENDKEY NOTESWINDOW TYPESA-201.DWG18076.00IL / KSUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-201.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:34 PM SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"Exhibit G030030 ABCDEFGHJKL5432154321ABCDEFGHJKL4545XXXXXXXX1typical2typical3typical4typical5typical6typical7typical8typical9typical10typical11typical12typical13typical14typicalFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOORFIN. FLOOR41'-0" 42'-6" 39'-0" 40'-6" 39'-0" 40'-6" 40'-6" 41'-0" 42'-6" 39'-0" 40'-6" 39'-0" 39'-0" 41'-0" 39'-0" 40'-6" 40'-6" 42'-6"NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTESAND DIMENSIONS -REFER TO DETAIL3-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TO DETAIL3-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TO DETAIL3-FOR typical NOTES, KEYNOTES, LEGEND AND DIMENSIONS REFER TO A-2014A-204SIM.4A-204SIM.4A-204SIM.1A-204SIM.1A-204MIRROR5A-204NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTESAND DIMENSIONS -REFER TO DETAIL3-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTESAND DIMENSIONS -REFER TO DETAIL3-SIM.2A-204SIM.1A-204SIM.6A-204SIM.6A-204MIRROR5A-204MIRROR2A-204SIM.1A-204MIRRORCBB1A-3014A-3013A-3012A-301typicaltypical1AA-302typical1AA-305typical4AA-304typical3AA-304typical2AA-304typicaltypicaltypical1AA-3022AA-3023A-307typical1AA-3072AA-307CBBBBCCBB1AA-303typical2AA-303typical4AA-303typical3AA-303typicaltypicaltypical4A-306typical2AA-302typical39'-0"FIN. FLOOR41'-0" 39'-0" 39'-0"1AA-306typical2AA-306typical3A-305typical1AA-307typical3A-3074A-302typical2A-305typical4A-301typicalBUILDING B EXTERIORELEVATIONSA-2024WEST ELEVATION3SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION1NORTH ELEVATIONGENERAL NOTESA-202.DWG18076.00IL \ KSUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-202.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:34 PM 5EAST TRUCK COURT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"6WEST TRUCK COURT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"031031 6A-204ABCDEFGHJKL12354354321ABCDEFGHJKL4545XXXXXXXX41'-0"FIN. FLOOR39'-0" 40'-6" 39'-0"FIN. FLOOR40'-6"FIN. FLOOR42'-6"FIN. FLOOR40'-6" 39'-0"FIN. FLOOR41'-0" 39'-0"FIN. FLOOR42'-6"FIN. FLOOR40'-6" 40'-6" 40'-6" 39'-0"FIN. FLOOR40'-6"FIN. FLOOR42'-6"FIN. FLOOR40'-6" 40'-6" 41'-0" 39'-0"FIN. FLOOR39'-0"1typical2typical34typical5typical6typical7typical8typical9typical10typical11typical11typical12typical13typical14typicalNOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TODETAIL3-AA39'-0"FOR typical NOTES, KEYNOTES, LEGEND AND DIMENSIONS REFER TO A-201NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TODETAIL3-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES ANDDIMENSIONS - REFER TODETAIL3-3A-2047A-2043A-2046A-2045A-2042A-2041A-2041A-2044A-2044A-2044A-2041A-2011A-2012A-2045A-204MIRRORSIM.SIM.SIM.SIM.SIM.SIM.SIM.MIRRORMIRRORSIM.SIM.MIRRORMIRRORCBB1A-3014A-3013A-3012A-301typicaltypical1AA-302typical1AA-305typical4AA-304typical3AA-304typical1A-308typicaltypical1AA-3022AA-3023A-307typical1AA-3072AA-3071AA-303typical2AA-303typical4AA-303typical3AA-303typicaltypicaltypical1AA-306typical2AA-306typical3A-305typical1AA-307typical3A-3074A-3024A-301typical2A-3054A-305typical3AA-302typical4A-307typicalBBC2A-3083A-3084A-3081AA-306typical1BA-305typical3A-306typical2AA-306typicalBUILDING C EXTERIORELEVATIONSA-2034WEST ELEVATION3SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION1NORTH ELEVATIONGENERAL NOTESA-203.DWG18076.00IL / KS6EAST TRUCK COURT ELEVATION7WEST TRUCK COURT ELEVATIONUNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-203.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:34 PM SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"5PARTIAL EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"032032 XXXX40'-6" 38'-0" 29'-11"FIN. FLOORT.O.P.FIN. FLOOR42'-6" 38'-0"T.O.P.40'-0" 2'-0"STOREFRONT GLAZING,typicalSTOREFRONT DOOR,typicalMETAL CANOPY, typicalILLUMINATED BUILDINGADDRESSPAINTED CONCRETETILT-UP PANELS, typicalFUTURE TENANTSIGNAGE, typicalLINE OF ROOF BEYOND(SHOWN DASHED),typicalROOF DRAIN BEYOND (SHOWNDASHED) AND OVERFLOW SCUPPERS,typical - REFER TO 25 / A-502LIGHT FIXTURE, typicalPANEL REVEAL, typicalEQ.EQ.CL29'-11"CLEQ.EQ.CL38'-0" 40'-0"T.O.P.EQ.EQ.2'-5"NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES, DETAILS, ANDDIMENSIONS, REFER TO DETAIL6-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES, DETAILS, ANDDIMENSIONS, REFER TO DETAIL5-38'-0" 40'-0"FIN. FLOORT.O.P.2'-0"4'-0"typicalF.O.P.CONCRETE PANEL WITHFORMLINERCONCRETE PANEL WITHFORMLINER39'-0" 40'-6"FIN. FLOORT.O.P.NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES, DETAILS, ANDDIMENSIONS, REFER TO DETAIL6-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES, DETAILS, ANDDIMENSIONS, REFER TO DETAIL6-40'-6"FIN. FLOORT.O.P.SECTIONAL GRADE LEVEL DOOR -REFER TO SCHEDULEVERTICAL LIFT SECTIONAL DOOR -REFER TO SCHEDULE, typicalTRUCK DOOR BUMPER, typical -REFER TO DETAIL4A-501LOUVER, typical - REFER TODETAIL8A-501KNOCK-OUT PANEL, typicalCONCRETE STAIRS WITH TILT PANELSPAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT BUILDINGCOLOR - REFER TO SITE PLAN ANDCOORDINATE WITH CIVIL & STRUCTURALDRAWINGSMAN DOOR PAINTED TO MATCHBUILDING COLORLIGHT FIXTURE - REFER TOELECTRICAL DRAWINGS6-FIN. FLOORNOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES, DETAILS, ANDDIMENSIONS, REFER TO DETAIL6-NOTE:FOR TYPICAL NOTES, DETAILS, ANDDIMENSIONS, REFER TO DETAIL5-6-CONCRETE STAIRS WITH TILTPANELS PAINTED TO MATCHADJACENT BUILDING COLOR -REFER TO SITE PLAN ANDCOORDINATE WITH CIVIL &STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, typicalMAN DOOR PAINTED TO MATCHBUILDING COLOR, typicalLIGHT FIXTURE - REFER TOELECTRICAL DRAWINGS, typical38'-0" 40'-0" 42'-6"FIN. FLOORT.O.P.54CAEFGCDFH39'-0"ENLARGED ELEVATIONSA-204A-204.DWG18076.00K.S.BUILDING C ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3BUILDING A ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2UNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARDSHELL BUILDINGS8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALREVISIONS:PHELANDEVELOPMENT18600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.1930OCTOBER 24, 2019CITY PROJ. #:BPR2019-00030FILE LOCATION: p:\2018\18076 pdev - 9th and vineyard, rancho cucamonga\Cad\03_CD\Sheets\A-204.dwg PLOT DATE: 12/10/2019 3:34 PM BUILDING C ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"7BUILDING A ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"6BUILDING A ENLARGED EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"5BUILDING A ENLARGED NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1BUILDING A ENLARGED NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4033033 CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E VT476'-0"30'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"30'-0"9th AVENUEPROPERTY LINE PROPOSED BUILDING CA''A40'-0"O.C.ELECTRICALTRANSFORMER30'-0" MAX.'BB'OBSERVE SIGHT DISTANCELINES PER CITY STANDARDSOBSERVE SIGHT DISTANCE LINESPER CITY STANDARDS(ENGINEERING DEPT)REFER TO TYPICAL BUILDING PAVINGENTRY ENLARGEMENT, SHEET L-6.REFER TO TYPICAL BUILDING PAVINGENTRY ENLARGEMENT, SHEET L-6.OVERHEAD POWER LINES WITHIN PARKWAY.NOTE: ALL PROPOSED TREES SHALL BE APPROVED BY SCE.MONUMENT SIGN AND PUBLICART INSTALLATION. REFER TOARCH. DWGS.BIO-SWALE PER CIVIL DWGS.BIO-RETENTIONBASINPER CIVILDWGS.TYP. SCREEN SHRUBSTYP. SCREEN SHRUBSBUILDING CMATCH LINE TO L-811223REFER TO ENLARGEMENT 'A' THIS SHEET.REFER TO SECTION 'B-B' SHEET L-6.78654109APPROX. LOCATION OFEXISTING PALM TREE TOBE CONFIRMED IN FIELD.107459REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FORCONRETE APRON103386REFER TO ENLARGEMENT 'A' THIS SHEET.33REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FORCONRETE APRONSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"0 20' 40' 60'NORTHPLANTING PLANL-7UNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARD8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALXX MONTH 20XXPLAN CHECK RESUBMITTAL #1XX MONTH 20XXPLAN CHECK RESUBMITTAL #2XX MONTH 20XXISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTIONXX MONTH 20XXISSUED FOR BIDREVISIONS:XX MONTH 20XXAS-BUILTSPHELANDEVELOPMENTOCTOBER 24, 2019EXP. 11-30-19POFSIGNATURENO. 2076SASTFTEOACILDATEDEE R T ISGRE OETRTS CDNALCASTEPARONI CHTIENCTEAR12-9-1918600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.19302883 VIA RANCHEROS WAYFALLBROOK, CA 92028PH: 760-842-899322 NOVEMBER 201950% COORDINATION SET09 DECEMBER 2019CITY SUBMITTALCITY PROJ. #: BPR2019-00030BREAK PATIO 'A' ENLARGEMENT KEY NOTES:1. CONCRETE PAVING WITH 4 FT. X 4 FT. GRID PATTERN. SANDBLAST FINISH.2. STEEL OVERHEAD SHADE STRUCTURE BY OTHER.3. PRECAST CONCRETE TABLE BY QUICKCRETE #QR-42FC3-ADA.4. TYPICAL TRASH RECEPTACLE BY QUICKRETE #QS-SQ2432W-C17.5. CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH MEDIUM BROOM FINISH.BREAK PATIO 'A' ENLARGEMENTSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1P.A.P.A.BUILDING5234Exhibit H034034 CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVT PROPERTY LINEELECTRICALTRANSFORMERTRASHENCLOSURETRASHENCLOSUREBIO-RETENTIONBASIN PER CIVILDWGS.BUILDING BMATCH LINE TO L-7MATCH LINE TO L-8MATCH LINE TO L-8MATCH LINE TO L-9BIO-RETENTIONBASIN PER CIVILDWGS.1REFER TO TYPICAL BUILDING PAVINGENTRY ENLARGEMENT, SHEET L-6.3853753710683310SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"0 20' 40' 60'NORTHPLANTING PLANL-84UNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARD8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALXX MONTH 20XXPLAN CHECK RESUBMITTAL #1XX MONTH 20XXPLAN CHECK RESUBMITTAL #2XX MONTH 20XXISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTIONXX MONTH 20XXISSUED FOR BIDREVISIONS:XX MONTH 20XXAS-BUILTSPHELANDEVELOPMENTOCTOBER 24, 2019EXP. 11-30-19POFSIGNATURENO. 2076SASTFTEOACILDATEDEE R T ISGRE OETRTS CDNALCASTEPARONI CHTIENCTEAR12-9-1918600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.19302883 VIA RANCHEROS WAYFALLBROOK, CA 92028PH: 760-842-899322 NOVEMBER 201950% COORDINATION SET09 DECEMBER 2019CITY SUBMITTALCITY PROJ. #: BPR2019-00030035035 TCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE ELECTRICALTRANSFORMERTRASHENCLOSURE30'-0"MAX.EXISTINGSITE WALLNEW CONC. SCREENWALL PER CIVIL DWGS.BIO-RETENTIONBASIN PER CIVILDWGS.BUILDING AMATCH LINE TO L-8REFER TO TYPICAL BUILDING PAVINGENTRY ENLARGEMENT, SHEET L-6.544447388SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"0 20' 40' 60'NORTHPLANTING PLANL-9UNIFORM DRAWING SYSTEM - U.S. NATIONAL CAD STANDARD VERSION 3.1SHEET TITLE:DRAWN BY:DATE:FILE:PROJECT:MILESTONES:9TH AND VINEYARD8768 9TH STREETRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA09 DECEMBER 2019PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALXX MONTH 20XXPLAN CHECK RESUBMITTAL #1XX MONTH 20XXPLAN CHECK RESUBMITTAL #2XX MONTH 20XXISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTIONXX MONTH 20XXISSUED FOR BIDREVISIONS:XX MONTH 20XXAS-BUILTSPHELANDEVELOPMENTOCTOBER 24, 2019EXP. 11-30-19POFSIGNATURENO. 2076SASTFTEOACILDATEDEE R T ISGRE OETRTS CDNALCASTEPARONI CHTIENCTEAR12-9-1918600 MacArthur BoulevardIrvine, California 92612Architects, Inc.CoatsworthCarlileSuite 300www.ccarchitects.com949.833.19302883 VIA RANCHEROS WAYFALLBROOK, CA 92028PH: 760-842-899322 NOVEMBER 201950% COORDINATION SET09 DECEMBER 2019CITY SUBMITTALCITY PROJ. #: BPR2019-00030 036036 TCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV 52.00 52.00 CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E V CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / E VT T9TH STREET9TH STREETCUCAMONGA CHANNELS S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSCUCAMONGA CHANNELCUCAMONGA CHANNEL©Know what's before you dig.below.Call 811R9TH ST AND VINEYARD AVE CONCEPTUAL PLANS PREPARED FOR PHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANYNORTH GRADING PLAN LEGEND:C-101INDEXC-100EARTHWORKLOT SIZE (ACRES)11.9CLEAR DEPTH (INCHES)0RAW CAD EARTHWORKCUT (CU. YD.)10,500.00FILL (CU. YD.)24,109.00CUT FACTOR1FILL FACTOR1NET (CU. YD.)(13,609.0)ADDITIONAL EARTHWORKITEMQUANTITYUnit CU. YD.BUILDING AREA 231,533.8SF 4,288BUILDING SLAB DEPTH6.0INCONCRETE AREA 205,686.9SF 8,888CONCRETE SECTION DEPTH (8"PCC/6"BASE)14.0INSIDEWALK AREA 35,132.0SF 434SIDEWALK SECTION DEPTH4.0INCU YD.0ADDITIONAL CUT SUM (CU. YD.)13609CUT FACTOR (SHRINKAGE)1.0NET CUT (CU. YD.)13,609 ESTIMATED EARTHWORK RESULTSLOT SIZE (ACRES)11.9CUT (CU. YD.)24109FILL (CU. YD.)24109NET FILL (CU. YD.) -IMPERVIOUS VS PERVIOUS AREASIMPERVIOUS PERVIOUSSF%SF%EXISTING 38278275%12335325%PROPOSED 43113584%7924116%C-102C-103C-104C-105CONSTRUCTION NOTES:( 0 C.Y. BALANCE)FOR REFERENCE ONLYExhibit I037037 CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EV9TH STREET Δ=±3.9'I3SSSSS SSSSSSSSSFF: 1148.99 TO 1146.61 PAD: 1148.49 TO 1146.11 PROPOSED BUILDING C 100,554 sf (including mezzanine)CUCAMONGA CHANNELAPN: 0207-262-54OWNER: SAN BERNARDINO COFLOOD CONTROL DISTPR BASIN 1135.0 BOTTOM 1140.35 TC 1139.85 FL EX DRIVEWAY EX DRIVEWAY S78°36'42"W 7.00'''1140.75 TC 1140.25 FL 1140.84 TC 1140.34 FL 1141.72 TC 1141.22 FL 1141.79 TC 1141.29 FL Δ=4.0'©Know what's before you dig. below.Call 811 R 9TH ST AND VINEYARD AVECONCEPTUAL PLANS PREPARED FORPHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANYNORTH GRADING PLANSTORM DRAIN NOTES:SEE SHEET C-102 FOR CONTINUATIONSEE SHEET C-103 FOR CONTINUATION C-101 LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:FOR REFERENCE ONLY038038 T 9TH STREETAPN: 0207-262-73OWNERS:MULTIPLERESIDENTIALFF: 1148.99 TO 1146.61 PAD: 1148.49 TO 1146.11 A3B3CFSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEX DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BUILDING C 100,554 sf (including mezzanine)CFTC 1147.32 (FL 1146.82)CFEX DRIVEWAY CFC F MATCH EXIST. TC 1148.52 (FL 1148.02) ' 1143.82 TC 1143.32 FL 1145.46 TC 1144.96 FL Δ=4.0'©Know what's before you dig. below.Call 811 R 9TH ST AND VINEYARD AVECONCEPTUAL PLANS PREPARED FORPHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANYNORTH GRADING PLANSTORM DRAIN NOTES: SEE SHEET C-104 FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET C-101 FOR CONTINUATIONC-102 LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:FOR REFERENCE ONLY039039 CLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR /VANPOOL / EVΔ=±.65'Δ=0.0' Δ=±0.4' Δ=±4.0' Δ=±4.5'H3SSSSSSSSSSSSSFF: 1154.06 TO 1151.73 PAD: 1153.54 TO 1151.23 PROPOSED BUILDING B 85,209 sf (including mezzanine)CUCAMONGA CHANNELAPN: 0207-262-54OWNER: SAN BERNARDINO COFLOOD CONTROL DISTCFCF '©Know what's before you dig. below.Call 811 R 9TH ST AND VINEYARD AVECONCEPTUAL PLANS PREPARED FORPHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANYNORTHSEE SHEET C-104 FOR CONTINUATIONSEE SHEET C-105 FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET C-101 FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET C-105 FOR CONTINUATION C-103GRADING PLANLEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:FOR REFERENCE ONLY040040 T T APN: 0207-262-52 OWNER: DGH 8701 ARROW ROUTE Δ=±4.8' FF: 1154.06 TO 1151.73 PAD: 1153.54 TO 1151.23 Δ=±2.6' Δ=0.0' Δ=±3.1' Δ=±4.5' Δ=4.0'C3D3SSSSSSSS SS S S S S S S APN: 0207-262-73OWNERS:MULTIPLERESIDENTIALPROPOSED BUILDING B 85,209 sf (including mezzanine) C FCFC FCF ' ' '©Know what's before you dig. below.Call 811 R 9TH ST AND VINEYARD AVECONCEPTUAL PLANS PREPARED FORPHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANYNORTH SEE SHEET C-105 FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET C-103 FOR CONTINUATIONSEE SHEET C-102 FOR CONTINUATION C-104GRADING PLANLEGEND: CONSTRUCTION NOTES:FOR REFERENCE ONLY041041 TCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV 52.0052.00Δ=±6.0'Δ=4'Δ=±4.8'CUCAMONGA CHANNELFF: 1161.65 TO 1160.25PAD: 1161.15 TO 1159.75Δ=±0.4'Δ=±1.3'E3F3G3C FSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSAPN: 0207-262-54OWNER: SAN BERNARDINO COFLOOD CONTROL DISTAPN: 0207-262-24OWNER: GELLER LESTERAPN: 0207-262-19OWNER: ESTRELLA JOSELUIS & SOCORRO LIVINGAPN: 0207-262-47OWNER: ESTRELLA JOSELUIS & SOCORRO LIVINGPROPOSED BUILDING A50,771 sf(including mezzanine)APN: 0207-262-52 OWNER: DGH 8701 ARROW ROUTE CF CF C F C F CFCF CF C F '''©Know what's before you dig.below.Call 811R9TH ST AND VINEYARD AVE CONCEPTUAL PLANS PREPARED FOR PHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANYNORTHSEE SHEET C-104 FOR CONTINUATIONC-105GRADING PLAN LEGEND:CONSTRUCTION NOTES:FOR REFERENCE ONLY042042 22.0'11.0'17.0'121.0'TRUCK COURT33.0'FINISHEDFLOOR4.0' LOAD DOCK 2.0%MINR/WCL1.0'EX C&GBLDG CEX GRADEPROP. 12' HIGHCONCRETESCREEN WALLPROP. INFILTRATIONBASINF.L.1.2%3:12.0'3:1±5.7'26.0'DRIVE AISLE17.0'PARKING6.0'SDWKRET WALLFINISHED FLOORBLDG C0.5%CURBVALLEY GUTTERCURBEX GRADEPLEX. 6' HIGHSCREEN WALL2.0%1.0%±5.8'26.0'DRIVE AISLE17.0'PARKING6.0'SDWKCURBVALLEY GUTTERCURBEX GRADEPLFINISHED FLOORRET WALL1.7%0.5%BLDG B2.8%EX. 6' HIGHSCREEN WALL±7.4'26.0'DRIVE AISLE6.6'BLDG BRET WALLCURBC&GEX GRADEFINISHED FLOORPL1.6%EX. 6' HIGHSCREEN WALLCURBEX GRADEPLCURB±13.2'26.5'DRIVE AISLE9.0'BLDG AFINISHED FLOOR0.5%STEM WALLEX. 6' HIGHSCREEN WALLVEGETATED SWALE1.0%CURBEX GRADEPLFINISHED FLOORBLDG A±5.4'26.0'DRIVE AISLE9.0'STEM WALLPROP. 8' HIGHCONCRETESCREEN WALLREMOVE 1BLOCK @EVERY 50' TOALLOW FORDRAINAGE1.0%PLCURBFINISHED FLOOREX GRADE13.2'SDWK17.0'PARKING30.0'DRIVE AISLEVAIRES±1'-20'BLDG A1.5%1.7%STEM WALL 0.5%PR 6' HIGHCHAIN LINK FENCECUCAMONGA CHANEL RIGHT-OF-WAYVEGETATED SWALECURBC&GPLCURBFINISHED FLOOREX GRADEBLDG B6.0'SDWK17.0'PARKING30'DRIVE AISLEVARIES1.6%0.5%STEM WALL17.0'PARKINGPR 6' HIGHCHAIN LINK FENCECUCAMONGA CHANEL RIGHT-OF-WAYVEGETATED SWALEPLCURBFINISHED FLOOREX GRADEBLDG C6.0'SDWK17.0'PARKING60.0'TRAILER PARKING±5.6'0.5%STEM WALL51.50'DRIVE ISLE0.9%PR 6' HIGHCHAIN LINK FENCECUCAMONGA CHANEL RIGHT-OF-WAYCURBVEGETATED SWALE©Know what's before you dig.below.Call 811R9TH ST AND VINEYARD AVE CONCEPTUAL PLANS PREPARED FOR PHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CROSS SECTIONS SECTION A(SEE SHEET 102)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'SECTION B(SEE SHEET 102)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'SECTION C(SEE SHEET 104)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'SECTION D(SEE SHEET 104)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'SECTION E(SEE SHEET 105)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'SECTION F(SEE SHEET 105)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'SECTION G(SEE SHEET 105)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'SECTION H(SEE SHEET 103)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'SECTION I(SEE SHEET 101)HORIZ. SCALE: 1"=20'VERT. SCALE: 1"=4'C-110FOR REFERENCE ONLY043043 OCTOBER 15, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 1 of 3 A.CALL TO ORDER 7:00pm Roll Call: Ray Wimberly x Tony M. Guglielmo x David Eoff Alternates: Lou Munoz Francisco Oaxaca Additional Staff Present: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Sean McPherson, Senior Planner B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individuals members of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. Exhibit J 044 044 OCTOBER 15, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 2 of 3 C1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT - A request to develop an 11.73 acre site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 9th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 9th Street – APN: 0207-262-28, 0207-262-35, 0207-262-36, 0207-262-41, and 0207-262-42 . Related File: Minor Exception DRC2019-00205. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. The project was approved as presented. The Design Review Committee’s only concern was the outstanding purchase agreement with the parcel of land at the southeast corner of the project site. They recommended that the applicant clarify this issue by the time that the project is reviewed by the Planning Commission. C2. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 – PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. Related Records: Minor Exception DRC2018-00473. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. which permits the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. The Design Review Committee moved the project forward to the full Planning Commission without recommendation. The Committee informed the applicant that they faced challenges ahead for the PC to approve a project that is opposed by residents in the surrounding area. D. ADJOURNMENT 8:30pm The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. 045 045 OCTOBER 15, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 3 of 3 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. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, October 10, 2019 at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 046 046 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II City of Rancho Cucamonga BACKGROUND 1.Project File: DRC2018-00912 2.Related Files: 3. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Phelan Development Company is proposing to develop approximately 11.73-acres (510,847 gross square feet) located at 8768 – 8798, and 8810 East 9th Street with three combination office/warehouses that are similar to those that exist within the immediate vicinity of the project site, east of the Cucamonga channel as well as similar to those located west of the project site along the south side of East 9th Street. Figure 1, Regional Location, shows the general location of the project site within the larger region. Figure 2, Project Site and Vicinity, is a recent aerial photograph showing existing conditions at the project site and immediate vicinity. Figure 3, Photo Locations, shows the general location where photos were taken and the direction the viewer is looking. Photos taken from these locations follow Figure 3. Existing Conditions The proposed project will combine five individual parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 0207-262-26, 0207- 262-35, 0207-262-36, 0207-262-41, and 0207-262-42) into four parcels. Figure 4, Tentative Parcel Map, shows the new parcel configuration. Proposed Parcel 1 is 2.69 acres and is associated with proposed Building A. Proposed Parcel 2 is 3.94 acres and is associated with proposed Building B. Proposed Parcel 3 is 5.08 acres and is associated with Building C. Proposed Parcel 4 is 0.51 acre and is associated with the proposed right-of-way dedication along the north side of 9th Street. The project site is located in the southwestern portion of Rancho Cucamonga at an elevation of approximately 1,161 feet above mean sea level at the northwest corner, gradually decreasing in elevation to approximately 1,142 feet at the southeast corner. The site is currently developed with unpaved and paved (asphalt) areas, approximately 12 buildings (residential and non-residential), and multiple mature trees and large shrubs. Currently, none of the buildings, including residences, are occupied. Non-residential buildings were previously occupied by a floral supplier, auto repair, and roofing materials. Surrounding land uses are described below in Section 7. The area is developed with a combination of residential and non-residential uses, and the Cucamonga Creek channel. Access to the project site is from 9th Street west of Vineyard Avenue. Vineyard Avenue would be the main thoroughfare for vehicles accessing and/or leaving the site and has direct access to both the Foothill Freeway (SR-210) (2.7 miles north of the project site) and San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) (1.5 Exhibit K 047 047 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 2 miles south of the project site). In addition, vehicles could also access the Barstow Freeway (1-15) (4 miles east of the project site) via Foothill Blvd, located north of the project site. Proposed Project - Construction Construction activities will consist of (1) demolition of all buildings; (2) clearing and grubbing to remove all vegetation and debris; (3) grading to establish building pads, internal roads, and facilitate site drainage; (4) excavation and trenching for building footings and utilities; (4) building construction; (5) paving and striping (drive aisles and parking spaces); (6) landscape/hardscape; and (7) perimeter fence/wall. Construction activities will likely be consecutive rather than simultaneous since building construction cannot commence until the buildings are demolished, the site is cleared/grubbed, and grading is completed. The applicant has indicated that construction activities may begin in Winter 2020 and building construction is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2020. Construction is anticipated to commence in Winter 2020 and last approximately eight months. Estimated timing of construction activities is as follows: • Site demolition – approximately three months to demo the structures, concrete pads, and vegetation onsite, source separating all materials for recycling, green waste, and regular solid waste. Heavy equipment that may be used includes larger dozers, jackhammers, and excavators equipped with pulverisers, shears, breakers, and selector grab attachments. Smaller equipment includes chain saws for the multiple trees on site, skid steers and dozers. Based on existing site conditions and the amount of demolition proposed, an estimate of construction and demolition (C&D) material to be removed from the site is as follows: Material Amount (in tons) Wood salvage for reuse 195 Metal to be recycled 150 C&D material to be sent to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF)F 25 Concrete crushed for reuse 3,500 Projected Diversion from Landfill 3,870 Remaining C&G to be directed to a landfill 299 Assuming a 26-ton capacity for a typical haul truck, and assuming the site will produce four truckloads per day, it is estimated that the demolition will generate approximately 136 truckloads of material for haul-off over approximately 30 to 45 days. The City requires that an applicant recycle as much C&D material as possible. To that end, much of the vegetation removed can be sent to a composting facility, while the asphalt, concrete, and untreated lumber can be sent to a C&D facility for sorting. Untreated lumber and dry wall can be composted while asphalt and concrete can be crushed and reused; as fill or roadbed for example. The nearest facility for recycling this material is the Burrtec West Valley Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facility (TS/MRF) that includes the transfer station as well as a recyclables recovery facility, composting facility and C&D sort facility. 048 048 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 3 • Site grading and underground utility construction – this activity is expected to last one month. Construction activities include grading the site so that is balances (no soil import/export proposed), trenching for the placement of underground water, sewer and other wet/dry utilities throughout the site to service the structures. Typical equipment includes excavators and trenchers. • Building Construction – construction of the three warehouses is expected to occur over four months. The construction method is concrete tilt-up – concrete is formed on the ground, lifted into place and braced. Typical equipment includes welders, concrete trucks, and cranes for lifting. All portions of the buildings will be complete including installation of rollup doors and painting. • Final Site Paving and Landscaping – this activity is anticipated to occur over one month. All parking areas will be paved, and landscaping placed per the design. All architectural and parking lot lighting will also be installed. Proposed Project – Site Development Figure 5, Site Plan, shows the site layout with buildings, parking lot, loading docks, ingress/egress, etc. The proposed development of three industrial warehouse/office buildings ranging in size from 50,771 square feet to 95,188 square feet. These are further defined as follows: Building A (Rear Building) The applicant is proposing a 50,771 square foot industrial warehouse building that includes a 2,500 square foot office at the southeast building corner; and a 1,000 square foot mezzanine over the office. Figure 6a, Building A Elevations, shows the proposed elevations from all directions. The proposed building would meet the development standards as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.36.040 (see Table 1, Development Standards for General Industrial (GI) Uses except for the following: • A request for approval of a minor variance to the City Zoning Code regarding the required 45-foot setback from adjacent properties. Building A would be set back 40 feet from the site’s rear property line to the north (the back side of building A). Under existing conditions, the closest structure to the north is approximately 150 feet from the property line. The applicant has proposed the north side of the building to be made of concrete panels of varying related colors, and a concrete screen wall with landscaping, to break up the solid mass. Additionally, there is no parking and no dock doors proposed for this back wall. Building A would also meet the performance standards as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.66 (see Table 2, Class B Performance Standards for the General Industrial Zoning District). Building B (Middle Building) The applicant is proposing an 81,953 square foot industrial warehouse building that includes two, 2,500 square foot offices at the southeast and southwest corners of the building, both with 1,000 square foot mezzanines over the offices. Figure 6b, Building B Elevations, shows the proposed elevations from all directions. The proposed building would meet the development standards as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.36.040 (see Table 1, Development Standards for General Industrial (GI) Uses). 049 049 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 4 Building C (Front Building Adjacent to 9th Street) The applicant is proposing a 100,554 square foot industrial warehouse building that includes two, 2,500 square foot offices at the southeast and southwest corners of the building, both with 1,000 square foot mezzanines over the offices. Figure 6c, Building C Elevations, shows the proposed elevations from all directions. The proposed building would meet the development standards as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.36.040 (see Table 1, Development Standards for General Industrial (GI) Uses). The requirement for Building C (abutting 9th Street) is a maximum height of 35 feet, with an additional one-foot setback for each additional one foot in height. Therefore, the maximum building height of 42 feet, six inches shown in Figure 6c would require an additional 7 feet 6 inches. The applicant meets the intent of the code by setting the building back approximately 60 feet from the property line fronting 9th Street. Overall, the site has been designed to encourage trucks to use the east drive isle by providing a wider isle ranging from 30 feet to 47 feet vs 26 feet on the west side. Additionally, in an effort to mitigate noise, all buildings have been designed with dock doors facing south and east. Other Details The project will provide 166 parking spaces as required; 156 standard spaces and 10 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces. These are as follows: Building/Uses 166 spaces required Building A 63 required Warehouse 43 spaces Office Space 10 spaces Building B 60 required Warehouse 40 spaces Office Space 20 spaces Building C 63 required Warehouse 43 spaces Office Space 20 spaces Note: ADA spaces will be divided between buildings In addition, the project includes 62,090 square feet of landscaping (48,375 is required), in areas throughout the project site. 050 050 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 5 Table1 Development Standards for General Industrial (GI) Uses Description Standard Consistent Lot area (minimum) 0.5 ac yes Lot width (minimum) 100 ft yes Setback (minimum distance between structure and property line in ft Front yard1 25 ft yes Side yard2 45 ft when adjacent to residential yes Street side yard (and rear yard abutting street)3 -- No street side yards Rear yard2 45 ft when adjacent to residential Minor variance request for Building A Distance Between Buildings Primary buildings Must meet current building code requirements Yes Accessory buildings -- No accessory buildings proposed Building Height (maximum in feet) Primary buildings 35 ft at the front setback3 Maximum height is 75 feet3 yes Accessory buildings 18 ft No accessory buildings proposed Floor Area Ratio (maximum ratio of building to lot square footage) Floor area ratio 50—60 percent (0.5 – 0.6) yes Open Space Requirement (minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project) Open space/landscape area 10% yes Performance standards per Chapter 17.66)4 B yes Source: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.36.040 Development standards for industrial districts. Notes (modified to focus only on relationship to the project site): 1.. From Municipal Code Table 17.36.040-2, Streetscape Setback Requirements, where building setback from a Local/Collector Street is 25 feet; average depth of landscaping is 25 feet; and parking setback is 15 feet. 2. Setback shall be increased to 45 feet when abutting a residential property line. 3. Buildings exceeding 35 feet high shall be set back an additional one foot from the front setback for each one foot of height up to a maximum setback of 70 feet. Heights over 75 feet may be permitted with a conditional use permit. 4. Class B performance standards apply to the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District; and include standards identified in Table 2, Class B Performance Standards for the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District. 051 051 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 6 Table 2 Class B Performance Standards for the General Industrial Zoning District Issue Performance Standards1 Noise • 80 dB (anywhere on lot) • 65dB (at residential property line) • Noise caused by motor vehicles and trains is exempted from this standard Vibration All uses shall be operated so as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average persons beyond the lot upon which the source is located. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition is exempted from this standard. Particulate Matter/Air Contaminants In addition to compliance with the SCAQMD standards, all uses shall be operated so as not to emit particulate matter or air contaminants that are readily detectable without instruments by the average person beyond any lot line of the lot containing such uses. Odor All uses shall be operated so as not to emit matter causing unpleasant odors that are perceptible to the average person beyond any lot line of the lot containing such uses. Heat/Humidity/ Glare All uses shall be operated so as not to produce humidity, heat, glare, or high-intensity illumination that is perceptible without instruments by the average person beyond the lot line of any lot containing such use. Source: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66 Industrial District Performance Standards for Class B. Notes: 1. Performance Standards are addressed in the Initial Study in Section 1, Aesthetics (Light and Glare); Section 3, Air Quality (Particulate Matter, Air Contaminants, Odor; and Section 13, Noise (Noise and Vibration), and are met through a combination of project design features, standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. The project includes demolition of all properties (including buildings) located on five parcels north of East 9th Street and west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. Figure 5 shows the intended use of the project site as warehouses with related office space, access to the site and associated parking areas, landscape/hardscape areas. Figures 6a through 6c provide conceptual views of the proposed buildings. Finally, Figure 7, Conceptual Planting Plan, shows the proposed locations for landscaping around the site. There are currently no designated tenants at this time. The office/warehouses are designed with three to five dock doors, and to house one tenant each. Multiple smaller tenants may also co-locate within buildings B and C. The project does not include refrigerated buildings. 4. Project Sponsor Name and Address: Phelan Development Company 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 405 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tania Chavez, Vice President 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (GI) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings.) 052 052 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 7 North Residential properties Northeast Cucamonga Creek followed by retail center with five retail buildings (8560 Vineyard Ave) East Cucamonga Creek followed by Vineyard West Mini Storage (8646 Vineyard Ave) Southeast East 9th Street and water canal followed by Kiro Cars and Rancho Smog Center (8730 Vineyard Ave) South East 9th Street followed by Merchant’s Landscaping (8847 East 9th Street), Astor Broadcast Corp (8729 East 9th Street) and vacant land West Multifamily buildings Northwest Willow Apartments (8701 Arrow Route) 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: Kirt Coury, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 Kirt.coury@cityofrc.us 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) • State Water Resources Control Board – issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) for the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 053 053 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 0 10 20 30 405Miles ^_ Regional Overview Site Vicinity Figure 1 - Regional Overview Site Vicinity Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Date: 6/5/2019 Legend ^_Site Location O 054054 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.120.015 Miles Figure 2 Site Location Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Imagery Date: 8/6/2017 1 inch = 167 feetO Date: 6/5/2019 Legend Project Boundary 055055 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.120.015 Miles Figure 3 Photo Locations Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Imagery Date: 8/6/2017 1 inch = 167 feetO Date: 10/4/2019 Legend Project Boundary Cucamonga Creek Channel Photo Point Direction056 056 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.120.015 Miles Figure 3A Photos 1-4 Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho CucamongaO Legend Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 057057 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.120.015 Miles Figure 3B Photos 5-7 Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho CucamongaO Legend Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 7 058058 Figure 4 Tentative Parcel Map Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Phelan DevelopmentO Date: 10/4/2019 059059 Figure 5 Site Plan Schematics Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Phelan DevelopmentO Date: 10/4/2019 060060 Figure 6a Site Elevation Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Phelan DevelopmentO Date: 10/4/2019 061061 Figure 6b Site Elevation Phelan Development9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Phelan DevelopmentO Date: 10/4/2019 062062 Figure 6c Site Elevation Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Phelan DevelopmentO Date: 10/4/2019 063063 Source: SPLA L-1 Figure 7 Conceptual Planting Plan Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Imagery Date: 8/6/2017Not to Scale O Date: 9/30/2019 064064 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 19 GLOSSARY – The following abbreviations are used in the Initial Study: ACM Asbestos -containing material ACM Asbestos -containing material AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACM Best Available Control Measures BACT Best Available Control Technology bgs below ground surface BMPs Bes Management Practices BUOW burrowing owl C&D construction & demolition CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CALEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAL FIRE California Division of Forestry CalOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CGS California Geological Survey CH4 methane CMP Congestion Management Plan CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CVWD Cucamonga Valley Water District CWA Clean Water Act db decibel dBA A-weighted decibels DMA drainage management areas DPM diesel particulate matter DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration FGC Fish and Game Code FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FIRM Federal Insurance Rate Map FTA Federal Transit Agency GCC Global Climate Change GI General Industrial HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFC hydrofluorocarbons HHD 4+ axle trucks hp horse power HREC Historically Recognized Environmental Concern ITE Institute of Traffic Engineers kBTU Thousand British Thermal Units kWh kilowatt hours 065 065 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 20 LCA Lifecycle Analysis LDA lght duty auto Ldn Day-Night Noise Level Leq equivalent level LHD 2 – axle trucks LID low impact development LPB lead-based paint LST Localized Significance Threshold mgd Million gallon per day MHD 3 – axle trucks MRF Material Recovery Facility MMTCO2e Million Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MTCO2e Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NO2 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NBS Nesting Bird Survey NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NHRP National Register of Historic Places NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OEC Other Environmental Considerations OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration pb lead PCE passenger car equivalent PFC perfluorocarbons PM10 and PM2.5 Particulate Matter 10 or 2.5 microns or less ppb parts per billion PPM parts per million PPV peak particle velocity ROG reactive organic gases RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy PM10 fine particulate matter REC Recognized Environmental Concern RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SBCFD San Bernardino County Fire Department SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SIP State Implementation Plan SLF Sacred Lands File SO2 sulfur dioxide SPL sound pressure level SSC species of special concern STC sound transmission class SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons TPZ tree protection zone TS Transfer Station USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USDA US Department of Agriculture UTR utility tractors VOC volatile organic compound 066 066 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 21 VMT vehicle miles traveled WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SIP State Implementation Plan SLF Sacred Lands File SO2 sulfur dioxide SSC species of special concern SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TPZ tree protection zone TS Transfer Station USACE US Army Corps of Engineers VOC volatile organic compound VMT vehicle miles traveled WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number WQMP Water Quality Management Plan 067 067 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 22 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 / Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards / Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: 11/26/2019 12/02/2019 068 068 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 23 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?  d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION 1(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The 2010 General Plan Update Program EIR states that “Aesthetics generally refer to the identification of visual resources, the quality of one’s view, and/or the overall visual perception of the environment. The issue of light and glare is related to both the creation of daytime glare due to the reflection of the sun (such as on glass surfaces) and/or an increase in nighttime ambient lighting levels (such as from building lights, streetlights, and vehicle headlights).” Land uses on surrounding properties are listed in Table 3, Surrounding Properties, Existing Land Uses and Land Use Designations. Figure 3, Photo Locations, shows where photos of the project site were taken. Photos of the site follow Figure 3. As shown in the photos and aerial photograph, the project site is developed with a number of residential structures and non-residential building with related landscape and hardscape that is fenced, separating that site from the residential sites to the north and west. Toward the rear of the property (north) are some nonresidential out buildings. The property and buildings all appear to be vacant. Views across the site from 9th Street toward the San Gabriel mountains are generally blocked by tall trees, buildings and utility poles. Views from the existing multi-family buildings to the west are of unkempt site with overgrown vegetation, boarded up houses, and vacant building pads. Likewise, any views of the property from the existing multi-family buildings on the north and northeast would be similar. 069 069 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 24 Table 3 Surrounding Properties Existing Land Uses and Land Use Designations Direction Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation North Residential properties Medium Density Residential (8-14 du/ac) Northeast Cucamonga Creek followed by retail center with five retail buildings (8560 Vineyard Ave) General Industrial (0.5 to 0.6 FAR) East Cucamonga Creek followed by Vineyard West Mini Storage (8646 Vineyard Ave) General Industrial (0.5 to 0.6 FAR) Southeast East 9th Street and water canal followed by Kiro Cars and Rancho Smog Center (8730 Vineyard Ave) General Industrial (0.5 to 0.6 FAR) South Along East 9th St: Merchant’s Landscaping, Astor Broadcast Corp and vacant land General Industrial (0.5 to 0.6 FAR) West Multifamily buildings Medium Density Residential (8-14 du/ac) Northwest Willow Apartments (8701 Arrow Route) Medium Density Residential (8-14 du/ac) Source: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use Map and Site Visit, 2019. The scenic vista available in Rancho Cucamonga is of the San Gabriel Mountains and related foothills to the north of the City, although there is no official designation given to this scenic vista in the City’s General Plan. The project site is developed with a number of buildings and tall trees that impair views of the mountains from locations south of the project site. Demolition and redevelopment of the project site would introduce three new light industrial/warehouse buildings at up to 38 feet in height, when including the parapet elements at the corners of the buildings and to surround the rooftop heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, the height is 42 feet 6 inches. The project includes new landscaping around the perimeter of the property including trees and groundcover. Under future conditions with the three buildings in place and mature landscaping, views of the San Gabriel mountains would continue to be affected by buildings on the project site. However the area along the south side of 9th Street is designated General Industrial and is sparsely developed with a landscape company and a broadcasting building. Neither of these uses provide public access with opportunities for views of a scenic vista. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the loss of the availability of a scenic resource. The multi-family neighborhood to the west is separated from the project site by a solid block wall and mature landscaping that partially blocks views of and across the project site. Therefore, developing the project site with new warehouses would not adversely affect existing views of a scenic vista. 1(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Determination: No Impact. The project site is not located near any state-designated scenic highways, or highways eligible for designation as a State scenic highway. (see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways for list of designated State scenic highways through 2017). The only officially designated State scenic highway is SR-18 in the San 070 070 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 25 Bernardino Mountains. In addition, the project site does not contain any scenic resources such as rock outcroppings, or historic buildings; and the existing trees are in a deteriorated condition. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the proposed project. 1(c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in a non-urbanized area. The project site is located in a General Industrial district where proposed land uses are allowed. The size of the three buildings, spacing between buildings, new hardscape and landscape are all in compliance with the City’s zoning code. For example, the site is designed with building setbacks that are greater than the 45 feet required by City code. As shown on Figure 5, with the exception of Building A and its relationship to the rear yard setback, the project is consistent with the City’s Development Code (see Table 1). The applicant has requested a minor variance for a setback of 40 feet rather than the required 45 feet. The closest structure is approximately 150 feet north of the property line. In addition, the applicant has proposed a concrete screen wall, which along with current landscape design (see Figure 7), will be efficient in blocking any incursion. Additionally, there are no dock doors proposed for this back wall, or any parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Development Code (Section 17.36.040), and with the screen wall and landscaping, along with the building design, the impact would be less than significant. During construction, travelers along 9th Street and at adjacent properties may see demolition and construction activities occurring on-site, including equipment staging areas, stockpiles and debris piles as work progresses. Viewers may be inconvenienced in the short term if scenic views are temporarily interrupted. However, this impact is temporary and would cease once the site development is completed. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. The building height of each building will be 38 feet at the roofline with parapet features at the corners up to 42 ½feet. Building C is located adjacent to 9th Street and the Development Code requires an increase in the setback of one foot for every one foot in height over 35 feet. With a height of 42 ½feet, Building C must be set back from 9th Street an additional 7½ feet for a setback of 32 ½ feet north of 9th Street. However, as shown in Figure 7, the building is set back approximately 60 feet from the property line along 9th Street. Therefore, Building C would not conflict with the Development Code, and the impact would be less than significant. Site lighting will be low-level high-pressure sodium that will be directed downward at the parking lot and/or along the edges of the building. Landscaping is designed around the perimeter as well as within various parking areas. The height of the buildings will be 38 feet with parapet features up to 42feet, which is consistent with the building elevations of the adjacent multifamily residential development adjacent to the west. The color scheme of the warehouses includes a variety of neutral earth tones with accents which are consistent with the color scheme of the adjacent townhomes so that the warehouses blend with the surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an adverse impact to scenic quality in the area. 1(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Determination: Less than Significant Impact. 071 071 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 26 The applicant has completed a Photometric Study (Appendix A) of the site. Based on the result, the site has been designed so that the low-level high-pressure sodium lights will be directed downward at the parking lot and/or along the edges of the building. Landscaping is designed around the perimeter as well as within various parking areas. Adherence to the lighting requirements in the Zoning Code will ensure that this impact is less than significant. Adherence to the lighting requirements in the Development Code Section 17.58.050, General Lighting Requirements, and Section 17.66.110, Special Industrial Performance Standards, will ensure that this impact is less than significant. Table 4, Illumination Requirements That Apply to the Proposed Project, is taken from Section 17.58.050. Table 4 Illumination Requirements That Apply to the Proposed Project Category Where Measured Required Illumination (minimum or maximum) Notes Parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, public phones, group mailboxes Within 2-foot radius of object edge 1.0 foot-candle (minimum) and 4.0 foot- candle (maximum) At all hours Nonresidential structures, entryways, and doors 5-foot radius of door (each side) 1.0 foot-candle (minimum) During hours of darkness Adjacent residential property At structure and rear setback line 0.1 foot-candle (maximum) Equivalent to moon’s potential ambient illumination Source: Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Table 17.58.050-1, Illumination Requirements MITIGATION MEASURES Projects impacts on Aesthetics and Scenic Resources have been determined to be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures have been identified. IMPACT CONCLUSION No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated. The project site is developed with a number of buildings and mature trees that obscure views of the San Gabriel Mountains and foothills. Therefore, replacing these with three new warehouse buildings would not have substantial adverse impacts on a scenic vista. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designation of General Industrial and has been designed to be consistent with the City’s Development Code and related standards, with the exception of the rear yard setback which is proposed to be 40 feet rather than the minimum of 45 feet. However, the applicant has requested a minor variance. The request cites the distance from the nearest residence of 150 feet north of the property line, the building design and a screen wall with enhanced landscaping to reduce visual impacts from the residences to the north. Therefore, this impact was found to be less than significant. There is no designated State scenic highway in the City therefore, there would be no impact on this resource. Finally, the applicant has submitted a photometric study that shows how site lighting will comply with the Development Code. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 072 072 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 27 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?  b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?  c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?  d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?  e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?  DISCUSSION 2(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? Determination: No Impact. The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga according to the City’s General Plan Update or the California Department of Conservation Farmland Map of San Bernardino County South published in August 2017. 2010. The project site is identified as Urban and Built-up Land; defined as “land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel.” As shown in Figure 3 and related site photos, the project site is developed with a number of residential and non-residential structures on approximately 11.53-acres. 2(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Determination: No Impact. 073 073 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 28 There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, per the City’s Zoning Map (2012). There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City, per the City’s General Plan. 2(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Determination: No Impact. There are no sites within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are 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. 2(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Determination: No Impact. There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts would occur related of the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. 2(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? Determination: No Impact. There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land. Therefore, there is no potential for conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. MITIGATION MEASURES Projects impacts on Agriculture and Forestry Resources have been determined to be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures have been identified. IMPACT CONCLUSION No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated or anticipated to occur related to Agriculture and Forestry Resources due to the project site’s location in an urbanized area of the City., 074 074 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 29 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  b) 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?  c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?  DISCUSSION: 3(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project was the subject of an Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B). CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed project is the South Coase Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP. The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and to determine whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with State and federal air quality standards. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) where air quality is characterized as being relatively poor. SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as State and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards. Currently, these State and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the Air Basin. Table 5, Ambient Air Quality Standards, lists the criteria pollutants and the related California standards (CAAQS) and National Standards (NAAQS). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six of the most common air pollutants. Table 6, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the Air Basin, lists these pollutants and the attainment status in the Air Basin. In 2017, the national and California ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) were exceeded on one or more days for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 at most monitoring locations. No areas of the Air Basin exceeded federal or California standards for NO2, SO2, CO, sulfates or lead. 075 075 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 30 Table 5 Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Concentrations3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet Photometry - - Same as Primary Standard Ultraviolet Photometry 8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m3) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)8 24-Hour 50 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 150 μ/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 - - Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)8 24-Hour - - - - 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour 20 ppm (23 μg/m3) Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 35 ppm (40 μg/m3) - - Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 μg/m3) 9 ppm (10 μg/m3) - - 8-Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 μg/m3) - - - - Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)9 1-Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) Gas Phase Chemiluminescence 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) - - Gas Phase Chemiluminescence Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (357 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary Standard Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)10 1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) - - Ultraviolet Fluorescence; Spectrophotometry (Pararosaniline Method) 3-Hour - - - - 0.5 ppm (1300 mg/m3) 24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain areas)10 - - Annual Arithmetic Mean - - 0.14 ppm (for certain areas)10 - - Lead11,12 30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Atomic Absorption - - Calendar Qrtr - - 1.5 μg/m3 (for certain areas)12 Same as Primary Standard High Volume Sampler and Atomic Absorption Rolling 3-Month Average - - 0.15 μg/m3 Visibility Reducing Particles13 8-Hour See footnote 13 Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape No National Standards Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence Vinyl Chloride11 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) Gas Chromatography Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 2-1. Notes: 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 076 076 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 31 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA. 8. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 9. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 10. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 11. CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 12. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 13. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the State and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. In March 2017, SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP; a plan that continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS and NAAQS, as well as, explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. 077 077 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 32 Table 6 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the Air Basin Criteria Pollutant State Designation1 Federal Designation1 Ozone – 1-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment (“Extreme”) Ozone – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment (“Extreme”) PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance) PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment (“Serious”) Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Lead Attainment Nonattainment (“Partial”) Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 2-2 Notes: 1. State/federal designations were taken from http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The project’s consistency with the AQMP was determined using the 2016 AQMP. The project’s consistency with SCAQMD’s criteria for determining consistency are summarized here. Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Construction Impacts Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the CAAQS and NAAQS. Violations would occur if Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated below in 2(b) and 2(c), the project’s regional and localized construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds or LST thresholds, respectively. See Table 8 and Table 9, in section 3(b) below. This determination assumes implementation of SCAQMD Rules including Rule 403. This rule governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. Compliance with Rule 403 is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites. See further discussion of Rule 403 below in response 3(c). Also see Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of related BMPs to reduce impacts to disturbed soils that must be implemented through the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 078 078 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 33 Operational Impacts The project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds and LST thresholds for operational activity. See Table 8 and Table 9 in response 3(b) below, for a summary of the CalEEMod data. As shown in these tables, operation of the proposed warehouses would not result in a conflict with the AQMP. Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of the project’s build-out phase. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the SCAQMD are provided to SCAG, who then develops regional growth forecasts. These forecasts are used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Construction Impacts Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. Operational Impacts The project site is designated as General Industrial (GI) in the City’s General Plan. This designation allows a wide range of industrial activities that include manufacturing, assembling fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. The proposed project includes approximately 236,534 square feet of warehouse and related office uses on approximately 11.73 acres in an area where other similar uses have been developed or are proposed. The project’s land uses are generally consistent with the land uses allowed under the City land use designations for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s growth projections and no changes are proposed to these existing designations. Additionally, as identified in the analysis of the project’s contribution to local and regional air quality, construction and operational-source air pollutant emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds. Therefore, the project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. 3(b) 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? Determination: Less than Significant Impact. SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for regulated pollutants, as summarized at Table 7, Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds. 079 079 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 34 Table 7 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Project Construction lbs/day Project Operation lbs/day Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 100 55 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10) 150 150 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less PM2.5 55 55 Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) 150 150 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Lead (pb) 3 3 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 3-1. SCAQMD’s 2015 CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds indicate that any projects in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the thresholds should be considered to have an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. The Air Quality Analysis prepared for the project (see Appendix B) did not calculate lead emissions because project-related construction and operational activities would not generate a quantifiable amount of lead emissions. Additionally, the air quality modeling program (summarized herein) does not calculate any emissions of lead from typical construction or operational activities. Construction Emissions Project construction would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities: • Demolition • Site Preparation • Grading • Building Construction • Paving • Architectural Coating The applicant has indicated that construction is expected to commence in Fall 2019 and will last through December 2020. Therefore, an Opening Year of 2020 was assumed. The project site is currently developed with a number of residential and non-residential buildings. Using information provided by the applicant, demolition and site preparation would generate approximately 4,169 tons of debris broken down as follows: • Trash to a Landfill 299 tons • Wood salvaged for reuse 195 tons • Metal recycled 150 tons • Construction and Demolition for reuse 25 tons • Concrete crushed for reuse 3,500 tons • Total 4,169 tons 080 080 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 35 Methodology To account for fugitive dust emissions generated during demolition activity, the amount of material demolished was entered in to CalEEMod in terms of “Tons of Debris” or “Building Square Footage”. For analytical purposes, 4,169 tons of debris was modeled in CalEEMod. Per CalEEMod, demolition emissions include building destruction, debris removal (building material, vegetation, concrete etc.), and hauling it all away from the site on paved and unpaved roads. CalEEMod was also utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. The applicant has indicated that the site will balance (cut and fill) and no import or export of soil will be required. Construction emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the project site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the project site) were estimated based on information CalEEMod model defaults. SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for the project include but are not limited to Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). It should be noted that Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) are not mitigation as they are standard regulatory requirements. Therefore, calculation of construction emissions includes reductions for compliance with Rule 403 and Rule 1113. Impacts without Mitigation The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on Table 8, Emissions Summary of Construction (without Mitigation). Under this scenario, emissions resulting from project demolition and construction would not exceed SCAQMD’s criteria pollutant thresholds for emissions for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. Note: the findings assume compliance with SCAQMD Rules for construction activities such as Rule 403 for the control of fugitive dust. Table 8 Emissions Summary of Construction (without Mitigation) Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 2019 4.85 54.59 34.19 0.07 11.07 6.28 2020 62.45 46.67 47.45 0.11 5.75 2.99 Maximum Daily Emissions 62.45 54.59 47.45 0.11 11.09 6.28 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 3-5. Operational activities associated with the proposed project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources: • Area Source Emissions • Energy Source Emissions • Mobile Source Emissions 081 081 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 36 Area Source Emissions Architectural Coatings Over a period of time the building that is part of this Project will be subject to emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings as part of Project maintenance. The emissions associated with architectural coatings were calculated using the CalEEMod model. Consumer Products Consumer products include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. The emissions associated with use of consumer products were calculated based on defaults provided within the CalEEMod model. Landscape Maintenance Equipment Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. The emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in the CalEEMod model. Energy Source Emissions Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity Electricity and natural gas are used by almost every project. Criteria pollutant emissions are emitted through the generation of electricity and consumption of natural gas. However, because electrical generating facilities for the project area are located either outside the region (State) or offset through the use of pollution credits (RECLAIM) for generation within the Air Basin, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of significance and only natural gas use is considered. The emissions associated with natural gas use were calculated using the CalEEMod model. Mobile Source Emissions Vehicles Project mobile source air quality impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the Project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the project site. The project-related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the project. Per the 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Rancho Cucamonga, California – Trip Generation Analysis (Appendix M), the project is expected to generate a total of approximately 413 two-way trips per day (actual vehicles). The project trip generation includes 86 two-way truck trips per day. The 082 082 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 37 following truck fleet mix was utilized for the purposes of estimating the truck trip generation for the site: 17.4 percent of the total trucks as 2-axle trucks (LHD), 23.3 percent of the total trucks as 3-axle trucks (MHD), and 59.3 percent of the total trucks as 4+-axle trucks (HHD). Trip Length For passenger car trips, a one-way trip length of 16.6 miles was assumed as contained in the CalEEMod defaults. For trucks, an average one-way trip length of 53.26 miles was derived from distances from the project site to the far edges of the Air Basin. Assuming 50 percent of trucks travel to the Port of Los Angles and Port of Long Beach and the remaining 50 percent of trucks travel through other areas. Trip lengths are as follows: • Project site to the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach: 58.25 miles • Project site to Banning Pass (Riverside County): 58.47 miles • Project site to San Diego County Line: 66.03 miles • Project site to Cajon Pass (San Bernardino County): 28.70 miles • Project site to Downtown Los Angeles: 39.90 miles Average Weighted Truck Trip Length = 53.26 miles It is appropriate to stop the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) calculation at the boundary of the Air Basin because any activity beyond that boundary would be speculative and occur in a different Air Basin; this approach is also consistent with professional industry practice. Truck Idling Truck idling at the project site is another source of project-related operational emissions. CalEEMod calculates evaporative emissions, starting and idling emissions multiplying the number of trips by the respective emission factor for each pollutant all of these processes are embedded in CalEEMod. Fugitive Dust Related to Vehicular Travel Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of brake and tire wear particulates. The emissions estimates for travel on paved roads were calculated using the CalEEMod model. On-Site Equipment Emissions It is common for industrial warehouse buildings to require cargo handling equipment to move empty containers and empty chassis to and from the various pieces of cargo handling equipment that receive and distribute containers. The most common type of cargo handling equipment is the yard truck which is designed for moving cargo containers. Yard trucks are also known as yard goats, utility tractors (UTRs), hustlers, yard hostlers, and yard tractors. The cargo handling equipment is assumed to have a horsepower (hp) range of approximately 175 hp to 200 hp. Based on the latest available information from SCAQMD; for example, high-cube warehouse projects typically have 3.6-yard trucks per million square feet of building space. For the proposed project, based on the maximum square footage of the warehouse building space, on-site modeled operational equipment includes one 200 hp, non-diesel powered yard tractors operating at 4 hours a day for 365 days of the year. 083 083 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 38 Operational Emissions The estimated maximum peak operational emissions are summarized on Table 9, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions without Mitigation. As shown in Table 9, emissions resulting from project operations would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. Note: Although no mitigation measures have been identified, new development projects must comply with State requirements including Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity and water usage; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases regional air emissions. See Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for a discussion of the project’s compliance with State standards. 3(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Determination: Less than Significant Impact. SCAQMD developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. LSTs show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects based on the federal and/or State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS) (see Table 5). The methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology was used to assess local impacts The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of any given project are above or below State standards. For CO and NO2, if ambient levels are below the standards, the project is considered to be less than significant. A project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to PM10 and PM2.5; both of which are non-attainment pollutants (see Table 6). Emissions Considered SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. The maximum daily disturbed acreage was assumed as follows: • Demolition activities 1.5 acres • Site preparation activities 3.5 acres • Grading activities 4.0 acres 084 084 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 39 Table 9 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions without Mitigation Operational Activities Summer Scenario Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 5.41 4.00E-04 0.04 0.00 1.50E-04 1.50E-04 Energy Source 0.01 0.13 0.11 7.70E-04 0.01 0.01 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 0.46 0.69 10.22 0.04 4.14 1.12 Mobile (Trucks) 1.30 36.20 10.12 0.14 4.43 1.41 On-Site Equipment 0.15 1.79 0.78 3.17E-03 0.06 0.05 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 7.32 38.81 21.28 0.18 8.64 2.59 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Operational Activities Winter Scenario Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 5.41 4.00E-04 0.04 0.00 1.50E-04 1.50E-04 Energy Source 0.01 0.13 0.11 7.70E-04 0.01 0.01 Mobile (Passenger Cars) 0.42 0.75 9.08 0.03 4.14 1.12 Mobile (Trucks) 1.31 37.32 10.29 0.13 4.43 1.42 On-Site Equipment 0.15 1.79 0.78 3.17E-03 0.06 0.05 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 7.32 38.81 21.28 0.18 8.64 2.59 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 3-6. Sensitive Receptors Localized air quality impacts were evaluated at sensitive receptor land uses nearest the project site. To assess the stationary source operational and construction air impacts, six sensitive receptor locations were identified. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is an existing residence approximately 10 feet/3 meters west of the project site boundary. Other sensitive receptors are located as follows: • Approximately 15 feet north of the project site there are residential outdoor living areas (backyards) on the south side of Arrow Route. • Approximately 160 feet on the west side of Vineyard Avenue are commercial/office uses. • Approximately 90 feet south of the project site on the south side of 9th Street are commercial/office uses. • Approximately 10 to 20 feet west of the project site boundary are residential outdoor living areas (backyards), with other backyards located west of the project site boundary at approximately 85 feet away. 085 085 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 40 The Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters.” Most of the sensitive receptors listed above are located within the 25-meter range. Consistent with SCAQMD’s Final LST Methodology, a 25-meter receptor distance was utilized to determine LSTs for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. Construction Since the total acreage disturbed was found to be less than five acres per day for demolition, site preparation, and grading activities, SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables were used to determine impacts. The look-up tables identify thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, therefore linear regression was used to determine localized significance thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table 10, Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds, were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the project’s disturbed acreage. As previously noted, a 25- meter receptor distance was used to determine the LSTs for emissions of CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Table 10 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations NOx 118 lbs/day (Demolition) 220 lbs/day (Site Preparation) 237 lbs/day (Grading) 270 lbs/day CO 863 lbs/day (Demolition) 1,713 lbs/day (Site Preparation) 1,873 lbs/day (Grading) 2,193 lbs/day PM10 5 lbs/day (Demolition) 11 lbs/day (Site Preparation) 13 lbs/day (Grading) 4 lbs/day PM2.5 4 lbs/day (Demolition) 7 lbs/day (Site Preparation) 8 lbs/day (Grading) 2 lbs/day Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 3-8. Table 11, Localized Significance Summary of Construction without Mitigation, shows localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the project site. Without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 during site preparation. Operation As shown on Table 12, Localized Significance Summary of Operations without Mitigation, operational emissions would not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptor. The 11.73-acre site is larger than the 5 acres or less assumed in the LST look-up tables. For projects that exceed 5 acres, the 5- acre LST look-up tables can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions associated with the project would occur within a concentrated 5-acre area. 086 086 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 41 Table 11 Localized Significance Summary of Construction without Mitigation On Site Demolition Emissions Emissions (pounds per day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 35.78 22.06 3.53 1.93 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 863 5 4 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO On-Site Site Preparation Emissions Emissions (pounds per day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 45.57 22.06 10.88 6.23 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 11 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO On-Site Grading Emissions Emissions (pounds per day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 54.52 33.38 6.39 3.66 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 237 1,873 13 8 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 3-9. Table 12 Localized Significance Summary for Operations without Mitigation Operational Activities Emissions (pounds per day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 2.64 1.73 0.40 0.16 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 270 2,193 4 2 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 3-10. This screening method would therefore over-predict potential localized impacts, because by assuming that on-site operational activities are occurring over a smaller area, the resulting concentrations of air pollutants are more highly concentrated once they reach the smaller site boundary than they would be for activities if they were spread out over a larger surface area. On a larger site, the same amount of air pollutants generated would disperse over a larger surface area and would result in a lower concentration once emissions reach the project site boundary. As such, LSTs for a 5-acre site during operations were used as a screening tool to determine if further detailed analysis is required. As shown in Table 9, the project will have a less than significant localized impact during operational activity. 087 087 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 42 CO Hot Spot Analysis The proposed project was also the subject of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (Appendix C). The conclusion of the HRA was that the proposed warehouse project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” either in the context of the Los Angeles Hot Spot Study conducted in 2003 or based on representative CO threshold considerations established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Therefore, CO “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant. 3(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The potential for the project to generate objectionable odors was also considered in the Air Quality Assessment. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include: • Agricultural uses (livestock and farming) • Wastewater treatment plants • Food processing plants • Chemical plants • Composting operations • Refineries • Landfills • Dairies The proposed project would not include land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short term and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. As required by City code, project-generated refuse must be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other material that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 088 088 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 43 Evaluation of the Proposed Project in Light of the Sierra Club v County of Fresno (Friant Ranch) Case In December 2018, the California Supreme Court decided the Sierra Club v County of Fresno (Friant Ranch) case. In the Brief of Amicus Curiae provided to a lower court by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case, in April 2015, SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed Friant Ranch project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence) (Brief at pages 9-10). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)) (Brief at page 10). It should also be noted that the actual occurrence of specific health conditions is based on numerous other factors that are infeasible to quantify, such as an individual’s genetic predisposition, diet, exercise regiment, stress, and other behavioral characteristics. Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk--it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. Ibid. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results (Brief at page 14). Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects. Reached with respect to NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations (Brief at page 12). The Brief concluded, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful (Brief at page 15). On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Phelan Development project), SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone (Brief, at page 12). The proposed project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of VOC emissions. The proposed project would generate a maximum of 54.59 pounds per day of NOX during construction and 38.81 pounds per day of NOX during operations (0.82 percent and 0.58 percent of 6,620 pounds per day, respectively). The proposed project would also generate 62.45 pounds per day of VOC emissions during construction and 7.32 pounds per day of VOC emissions during operations (0.07 percent and 0.01 percent of 89,190 pounds per day, respectively). Therefore, the project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level. Notwithstanding, this the Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B) evaluated the proposed project’s localized impact to air quality for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the proposed project’s on-site emissions to SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. The result is that the proposed project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM10. 089 089 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 44 MITIGATION MEASURES Projects impacts on Air Quality have been determined to be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures have been identified. IMPACT CONCLUSION No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures have been identified. 090 090 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 45 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?  c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands t (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?  DISCUSSION 4(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? Determination: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an area developed with urban uses including dirt and asphalt areas, approximately 16 vacant residences and commercial buildings, and multiple large trees and large shrubs on site. A general Biological Resources Site Survey (see Appendix D for Biological Resources assessment Report) was conducted by a qualified biologist in February 2019 with an emphasis on special-status species known to occur in the area. Wildlife species were detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign. In addition to species observed, expected wildlife usage of the site was determined per known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. The focus of the wildlife surveys was to identify potential habitat for special status wildlife 091 091 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 46 within the project area. Disturbance characteristics and all animal sign encountered on the site were recorded. Research included a review of maps and databases. Figure 8, Site Soils, shows the types of soil known on and in the vicinity of the project site. Database searches identified 38 sensitive species (18 plant, 16 animal, 3 insect) and one sensitive habitat within the Ontario USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangle. Figure 9, 3-Mile CNDDB Occurrences, graphically depicts the findings of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search. The database searches did not indicate the presence of State- and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species or USFWS-designated Critical Habitats on the project site, or in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, no State- and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species, or other sensitive species were observed on site during the survey. Habitat on site consists primarily of non-native, ruderal vegetation and ornamental trees such as pepper, eucalyptus, avocado, ash, and jacarandas. An arborist report regarding the heritage status of the trees on site was prepared and is summarized in Section 4(e) below. The ruderal vegetation present within the project area consists mainly of annual non-native grasses (e.g. red brome Bromus rubens, ripgut brome Bromus diandrus) with occasional low-growing annual and perennial Mediterranean hoary mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Species observed or otherwise detected on site during the surveys included: • morning dove • mocking bird • red-tail hawk • common raven • American kestrel, and • domestic dog The project site has a very low potential for occurrence of any sensitive species identified in the database searches for this area because the project site is relatively small (11.73 acres) small, highly disturbed by urban uses including weed abatement activities and is landlocked on the north, south, west and east by intensive urban development. No State-- and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species, or other sensitive species were observed within the subject parcel or buffer survey areas. Burrowing Owl (BUOW) BUOW is a ground-dwelling owl typically found in arid prairies, fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground and are known to occur locally within suitable habitat areas. BUOW depends on the presence of mammal burrows, i.e. ground squirrel burrows to provide shelter from predators, inclement weather and to provide a nesting place. They are also known to make use of human-created structures, such as cement culverts and pipes, for burrows. They feed primarily on insects but will also take small rodents, birds, and reptiles. They are active during the day and night, generally observed in the early morning hours or at twilight. The breeding season for BUOW is February 1 through August 31. The BUOW is not listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Act but is considered both a State and federal species of special concern (SSC). The BUOW is a protected by the international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State law under the California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code #3513 & #3503.5). 092 092 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 47 Per the definition provided in the 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, “Burrowing owl habitat generally includes, but is not limited to, short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey.” Therefore, the project site and immediate vicinity does not contain suitable habitat for this species for the following reasons: • No burrows exist on site • Soils are tilled for weed abatement on a consistent basis • Surrounding adjacent development • Presence of predators of BUOW such as red-tail hawks and domestic dogs No evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area. No burrows of appropriate size, aspect or shape were located, and no BUOW pellets, feathers or white wash was found. No BUOW individuals were observed. Therefore, BUOW are considered absent from the site at the time of surveys. Nesting Birds The site is suitable for use by raptors for both nesting and foraging purposes. Red-tailed hawks, in particular, were observed perching on site. The project site and immediate surrounding areas do contain habitat suitable for nesting birds in general, including the several larger trees on site. Summary of Findings The subject parcel is not designated as Critical Habitat, no suitable habitat for sensitive species exists on site, and no sensitive species were observed during survey. There is low potential for BUOW or other sensitive species due to the lack of suitable habitat. The trees on site have a potential to support nesting birds and raptors such as red-tailed hawks. Therefore, to reduce the potential impacts to nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been identified and included at the end of this section under Mitigation Measures. 4(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? Determination: No Impact; or 4(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Determination: No Impact. Jericho Systems assessed the project site for jurisdictional waters. The purpose of the jurisdictional delineation (JD) was to determine the extent, if any, of State and /or federal jurisdictional waters that are subject to Sections 404 and 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) respectively; and/or Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) administered by the CDFW. During the site survey, the biologist also evaluated the project site and adjacent areas for the presence of riverine/riparian/wetland habitat and jurisdictional waters, i.e. waters of the U.S. as regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or 093 093 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 48 jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat as regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). During the field surveys, the biologist assessed the site for depressions, inundation, presence of hydrophytic vegetation, staining, cracked soil, ponding, and corresponding physical characteristics such as changes in the character of soils, and checked for the presence of definable channels, soils, and hydrology. Evaluation of potential federal jurisdiction followed the regulations set forth in 33CFR part 328 and the USACE guidance documents and evaluation of potential State jurisdiction followed guidance in the Fish and Game Code and A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds published by CDFW in 2010. The Cucamonga Creek flood control channel is located off site to the east. As shown in Figure 10, Blueline Stream, there are no drainages on site. The adjacent Cucamonga Creek channel is the only known stream in the vicinity. No aspect of the site presents any evidence of jurisdictional waters or riverine/riparian areas. None of the following indicators are present on site: riparian vegetation, facultative, facultative wet or obligate wet vegetation, harrow marks, sand bars shaped by water, racking, rilling, destruction of vegetation, defined bed and bank, distinct line between vegetation types, clear natural scour line, meander bars, mud cracks, staining, silt deposits, litter- organic debris. No riverine/riparian areas occur on site. Further, there is no historical, biological, or hydrological evidence that would indicate the presence of vernal pools. No vernal swales, vernal pool-like ephemeral ponds, or stock ponds are present on site. None of the mapped soils on site are listed on the USDA-NRCS National Hydric Soils List. The duration, timing, and frequency of inundation on site provide no indication or validation of vernal pool ecology. Water does not accumulate on surface for seasonal periods (more than three weeks) of inundation. Clay soils are not mapped on site. The site as a whole lacks the water retention capabilities necessary to support vernal pools the biological functions and values of vernal pools do not exist on site. No vernal pools occur on site. Therefore, development of the proposed project on this site would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or US Fish and Wildlife Service. 4(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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is developed with urban uses, both residential and non-residential buildings and related hardscape/landscape are located on site. The perimeter of the site is fenced. Therefore, wildlife movement across or through the site does not occur under existing conditions. The proposed project includes new perimeter wall around the project site boundary. Therefore, there would continue to be no corridor across the site for terrestrial wildlife, birds may be adversely affected. Mitigation measure BIO-1 addresses this issue by requiring a nesting bird pre-construction survey that includes the provision for setting up appropriate no-work buffers around occupied trees until the nest is no longer occupied with young birds. Regarding, other potential native wildlife nursery sites, see discussion of resident species in 4(a) above. There are no special status species known to occur on the project site. 094 094 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 49 4(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. All heritage trees on all private property within the City are subject to the provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.16.080, unless it a tree is designated as a historic landmark. Per Section 17.16.080(C), a heritage tree is defined as any tree which meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. All eucalyptus windrows; or 2. Any tree in excess of thirty (30) feet in height and having a single trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of twenty inches or more as measured 4.5 feet from ground level; or 3. Multi trunk trees having a total diameter at breast height (DBH) of thirty inches or more as measured 4.5 feet from ground level; or 4. A stand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; or 5. Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the city planner because of age, size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. A Tree Removal Permit is required for the removal of any trees on the project site that meet the criteria set forth above. Permit requirements are as follows: 1. No person, firm, or corporation shall remove, relocate, or destroy any heritage tree within the City limits, including an applicant for a Building Permit, without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the Planning Director. 2. No Tree Removal Permit shall be issued for the removal of any heritage tree on any lot associated with a proposal for development, unless all discretionary approvals have been obtained from the City, or unless an emergency waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection 17.16.080.G (Emergency Waiver). 3. No tree designated as a historic landmark shall be altered, removed, relocated, or destroyed by any person, firm, or corporation without first obtaining both a Certificate of Compliance and a Tree Removal Permit. Alternation, removal, relocation, or destruction of trees designated as historic landmarks may require a Certificate of Compliance even if exempt from the requirement for a tree removal permit under this Section. Section 17.16.080(E) lists the exemptions to the provisions of the Chapter as follows: 1. Trees which are fruit or nut bearing. 2. Trees planted, grown, and/or held for sale by licensed nurseries and/or tree farms or the removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to the operation of a licensed nursery and/or tree farms. 3. Trees within existing or proposed public rights-of-way where their removal or relocation is necessary to obtain adequate line-of-sight distances as required by the City Engineer, or his or her designee. 4. Trees that, in the opinion of the Director of Public Works Services, or his or her designee, will cause damage to existing public improvements. 5. Trees that require maintenance or removal action for the protection of existing electrical power or communication lines or other property of a public utility. 6. Trees within a designated Urban Wildlife Interface Area. 095 095 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 50 An arborist survey was conducted for the proposed project (Appendix E). Trees located on the project site include California pepper (Schinus molle), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), live oak (Quercus wislizeni), avocado (Persea Americana), Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), ash (Fraxinus spp.), Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), Deodar (Cedrus deodara), and American sycamore (Platanys occidentalis). These species are all identified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as heritage trees, and all but the sycamore were found to be in good health. However, as stated in the Arborist’s Report, most trees on the site do not meet the criteria for heritage trees. The Arborist has identified 15 trees that meet the criteria. Table 13, Heritage Trees Located at 9768 Ninth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, lists the tree species, height and status of their health of the 15 trees. In summary, the arborist has identified the trees on site that are subject to the permit requirements under Section 17.16.080 of the City’s Development Code. The remaining trees on site do not meet the criteria either due to their size, health, or location within the project boundaries that will be developed. Any trees selected for preservation should be protected by the implementation of tree protection zone (TPZ). This issue is addressed below as Mitigation Measure BIO-2. With implementation of this measure, impacts to heritage trees would be less than significant. 4(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? Determination: No Impact. The city does not have any areas that are covered by an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved State Habitat Conservation Plan. 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. Table 13 Heritage Trees Located at 9768 9th Street, Rancho Cucamonga Tree No. Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Health 1 California pepper 41.4 55 Good 2 Eucalyptus 56.4 and 41.3 60 Good 3 Avocado 20.3 33 Good 4 Ash 33.0 20 Good 5 Live Oak 34.4 36 Good 6 Ash 26.1 32 Good 7 Ash 52.2 30 Good 8 Aleppo pine 33.4 55 Good 9 Eucalyptus 22.6 53 Good 10 Eucalyptus 20.4 66 Good 11 Eucalyptus 21.1 51 Good 12 Jacaranda 26.0 50 Good 13 Deodar 29.0 60 Good 14 Deodar 27.0 65 Good 15 Sycamore 21.0 40 Fair Source: Dan Begley, Certified Arborist, Report, March 2019, Table A. 096 096 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 51 MITIGATION MEASURES BIO-1 Bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, April 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist shall conduct pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to project-related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist shall set appropriate no-work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage and expected types, intensity and duration of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no-work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive. BIO-2 Prior to ground-disturbing construction activities near any tree - heritage or otherwise - selected for preservation, a qualified biologist or arborist shall establish a tree protection zone (TPZ) around each tree or group of trees (for tree locations, see 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Project Certified Arborist Report, in Appendix E of the Initial Study). A TPZ is defined as an area that is temporarily fenced around a tree or group of trees where construction activities, including raking, cutting, storage of construction equipment or materials (including landscape equipment) shall occur. All construction personnel shall be instructed on the protocols to minimize impacts to trees and adhere closely to the TPZ requirements. IMPACT CONCLUSION Implementation of BIO-1 for nesting birds and approval of a Tree Removal Permit (BIO-2) would ensure that impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. 097 097 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, U SDA, U SGS, AeroGRID, IGN, an d the GIS U ser Com m un ity 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.120.015 Miles Figure 8Soils Overlay Phelan Developm en t9th Street an d Vin eyard Ave WarehousesCity of Ran cho Cucam on ga Im agery Date: 8/6/2017 1 in ch = 167 feetO Date: 10/10/2019 Legend Project Boun dary Soil Types SpC— Soboba ston y loam y san d, 2 to 9 percen t slopes TvC— Tujun ga gravelly loam y san d, 0 to 9 percen t slopes 098098 !(!( !( !( !(!( !( ^_ Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.60.45 Miles Figure 9 3 Mile CNDDB Occurences Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Imagery Date: 8/6/2017 1 inch = 4,899 feetO Date: 10/4/2019 Legend ^_Site Location 3 Mile Buffer Common Name !(California muhly !(California saw-grass !(San Bernardino aster !(mesa horkelia !(northwestern San Diego pocket mouse !(prostrate vernal pool navarretia !(slender-horned spineflower 099099 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,0 0.095 0.19 0.285 0.380.0475 Miles Figure 10 Blueline Stream Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Imagery Date: 8/6/2017 1 inch = 500 feetO Date: 10/4/2019 Legend Project Boundary Cucamonga Creek Channel 100100 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 55 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?  b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?  c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?  DISCUSSION 5(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 specifically addresses determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. A Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix F) was prepared for the proposed project in March 2019. The assessment consisted of a records search through the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) to determine whether previously recorded sites or resources exist within the project area, or whether the project area has been the subject of any previous cultural resource studies. Eight cultural resources have been previously recorded within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site, but none are located on site. In addition, through the use of historic aerial photographs and San Bernardino County Assessor data, buildings within the project area that are 45 years of age or older were identified. Finally, a reconnaissance-level survey of eight properties located within the project area was completed to identify buildings that may require documentation and evaluation. The project area contains parcels that were originally recorded as Cucamonga Fruit Lands tract, developed and heavily advertised by the Cucamonga Fruit Lands Company as a lure to potential residents throughout the nation. Of the seven parcels within the project site, historic-era buildings were identified within four parcels. These buildings were either non-residential warehouse /barn buildings or residences and related outbuildings. Evaluation of Eligibility The evaluation of eligibility of the structures located on site was based on limited archival research, typical for a due-diligence analysis, sufficient to make a recommendation of eligibility for architectural significant [CRHR Criterion 3/Rancho Cucamonga Criteria B (3 and 4)] and potential eligibility for associational significance [CRHR Criteria 1, 2 or 4/Rancho Cucamonga Criteria B (1, 2, and 5)]. Sources reviewed include assessor information, historic maps and aerials photographs, and the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Context Statement (Chattel 2010). No historical societies were consulted as part of the research. The findings of the Cultural Resources Assessment are as follows: 101 101 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 56 California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) 1. None of the buildings are likely to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2. None of the buildings are likely to be associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3. None of the building embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4. None of the buildings have yielded, or have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Rancho Cucamonga Landmarks Evaluation Criterion B(1): None of the buildings were confirmed to be associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The eight buildings evaluated are outside of the periods of significance of the contexts of Early Settlement (1811-1876), Acquisition of Land and Water (1877-1946), and Consolidation and Incorporation (1977-2010). It is likely the buildings are associated under Criterion B(1) under the contexts of Acquisition of Land and Water (1877-1946), Railroad Development and the Agriculture Industry (1877-1970), or Postwar Development (1945-1977). Although comprehensive research was not conducted for a full evaluation under this criterion, it is unlikely that these properties would be eligible for their association with one of these themes. Criterion B(2): None of the buildings are likely to be associated with persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion B(3): None of the buildings embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Criterion B(4): None of the buildings represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion B(5): None of the buildings have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Criterion C: Because none of the buildings are recommended eligible as Rancho Cucamonga Landmarks, evaluation of integrity is irrelevant. Based on the findings the Archaeologist concluded that none of the buildings were eligible for listing as Rancho Cucamonga Landmarks under criteria B 3, 4, or 5 nor likely to be eligible under criteria B 1 or 2. Because none of the buildings on the project site are recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR, none are considered historical resources under CEQA. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant. 5(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. 102 102 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 57 Cultural Resources Assessment focused on potential historic resources on the project site and did not specifically address archaeological resources. This is due in part because the project site has been fully disturbed with urban uses - both residential and non-residential uses and related landscape and hardscape areas, and underground infrastructure (e.g. water lines). There is always the potential to unearth unknown archaeological resources during grading and construction at a site, particularly when excavation and trenching are done to install new wet and dry utilities. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 have been identified should unknown resources be uncovered during demolition, site preparation/grading and construction (including installation of underground wet and dry utilities). Mitigation measures are located at the end of this section. 5(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the vicinity of the project site. The site has been used continuously over the past 50+ years for residential and non-residential uses. Regardless of past and existing site activities, there is a remote possibility that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation. If human remains are unearthed during grading and construction, the construction contractor is required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” Under Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 requires that whenever the NAHC receive s notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American descent, would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES Archaeological Resources CR-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or construction contractor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to prepare a monitoring plan for the project site. The monitoring plan shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Services Director or his/her designee and shall include: 103 103 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 58 • A training program for construction supervisors and crew members to recognize resources if they are encountered during ground disturbing construction activities; • The construction supervisor shall be required to halt construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the suspected resource and redirect activities to another part of the site to allow the project archaeologist time to identify and evaluate the resource. No grading activity will recommence in that area until cleared by the project archaeologist. • All mitigation measures shall be included in the notes on grading plans for the project. CR-2 If a significant archaeological resource is uncovered, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended within 100-feet of the potential resource(s). The project archaeologist shall notify the Development Services Director or his/her designee and the applicant to discuss the significance of the find and the mitigation that will be required. The project archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan that shall be implemented to protect the resource(s). A final report summarizing the significance of the resource(s) found, and the treatment of the resource(s) shall be submitted to the Development Services Director or his/her designee. If the resource(s) are determined to be Native American in origin, the project archaeologist shall notify the appropriate Native American Tribe(s) from a list provided by the City. Discovery of Human Remains The following California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 requirement for the inadvertent discovery of human remains is included as Mitigation Measure CR-3. CR-3 State Requirements for Human Remains. If human remains are unearthed during grading and construction, the construction contractor is required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” Under Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. IMPACT CONCLUSION With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 for the discovery of unknown archaeological resources and CR-3 for the inadvertent discovery of human remains, impacts associated with Cultural Resources would be less than significant. 104 104 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 59 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?  b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?  DISCUSSION Information from the CalEEMod outputs for project’s Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B) were used in the Energy Analysis (Appendix G) detailing related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the potential for a project to use consume energy resources in a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary way during construction or operation, or conflict/obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 6(a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction Energy Demand The estimated power cost of on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed project was estimated to be approximately $8,780.14. Construction equipment used for the project would result in single event consumption of approximately 57,968 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and project construction equipment would conform to the applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Best available control measures inform construction equipment operators of this requirement. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. Construction worker trips for full construction of the proposed project would result in the estimated fuel consumption of 34,335 gallons of fuel. Additionally, fuel consumption from construction vendor trips (medium and heavy-duty trucks) would total approximately 53,264 gallons. Diesel fuel would be 105 105 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 60 supplied by local and regional commercial vendors. Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved through the use of bulk purchases, transport and use of construction materials. The 2016 Integrated Energy Policy Report released by the California Energy Commission has shown that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on and off-road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures The equipment used for project construction must conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. The project would utilize construction contractors that practice compliance with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment. Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants. Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption. However, Mitigation Measure EN-1, located at the end of this section, is included to ensure compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations. Additionally, certain incidental construction-source energy efficiencies would likely accrue through implementation of California regulations and best available control measures (BACM). More specifically, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. To this end, “grading plans shall reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on-site stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before five minutes of idling.” In this manner, construction equipment operators are informed that engines are to be turned off at or prior to five minutes of idling. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved for the proposed development through energy efficiencies realized from bulk purchase, transport and use of construction materials. A full analysis related to the energy needed to form construction materials is not included in this analysis due to a lack of detailed project-specific information on construction materials. At this time, an analysis of the energy needed to create project-related construction materials would be extremely speculative and thus has not been prepared. In general, the construction processes promote conservation and efficient use of energy by reducing raw materials demands, with related reduction in energy demands associated with raw materials extraction, transportation, processing and refinement. Use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of 106 106 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 61 construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations. Taking all this into consideration and supported by the findings of the project’s focused Energy Analysis (Appendix G), project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Operations Energy Demand Annual vehicular trips and related vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project would result in an estimated 69,026 gallons of fuel consumption per year for light duty autos (LDA). Additionally, the project would result in an estimated 21,065 gallons of fuel consumption per year for light heavy duty (LHD) trucks. For medium heavy Duty (MHD) trucks, the project would result in an estimated 46,734 gallons of fuel consumption per year. For heavy heavy duty trucks (HHD) trucks an estimated 172,817 gallons of fuel consumption per year is estimated for the year 2020. The total estimated annual fuel consumption from project generated VMT would result in a fuel demand 309,642 gallons of fuel. Fuel would be provided by current and future commercial vendors. Trip generation and VMT generated by the project would be consistent with other warehouse uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Ed., 2017); and CalEEMod. That is, the project does not include uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of LDAs and LHDs to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, bio fuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. Therefore, the project’s transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. For a more detailed discussion of energy consumption, refer to Initial Study Appendix G, Energy Analysis. Facility Energy Demands Project facility operational energy demands are estimated at 480,164 kBTU/year of natural gas; and 576,100 kWh/year of electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the project by Southern California Gas Company; electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison. The project includes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Warehouse uses proposed by the applicant are not inherently energy intensive, and the project energy demands in total would be comparable to, or less than, other industrial projects of similar scale and configuration. 6(b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies as required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the project’s operation was calculated in the project’s Energy Analysis (Appendix G) to be comparable to, or less than, 107 107 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 62 energy consumed by other industrial uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, the project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing facilities or energy delivery systems. MITIGATON MEASURES EN-1 During all construction activities (demolition, grading, construction, etc.) vehicles and equipment shall not idle more than 5 minutes. To this end, all construction plans, including demolition plans, shall reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on-site stating that construction workers must shut off engines at or before 5 minutes of idling. In this manner, construction equipment operators are informed that engines are to be turned off at or prior to 5 minutes of idling. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials. IMPACT CONCLUSION With implementation of Mitigation Measure EN-1, the project’s impacts on Energy would be less than significant. 108 108 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 63 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause 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 direct or indirect 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?  f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature?  DISCUSSSION 7(a) Directly or indirectly cause 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; ii) strong seismic ground shaking; iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv) landslides? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Rupture of a known fault According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project (Appendix H), the site is not within a currently established State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a San Bernardino County Fault Hazard Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. The nearest active 109 109 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 64 faults to the site are the Cucamonga fault, located 4.5 miles to the north, and the Chino-Central Avenue fault, located approximately 8 miles to the southwest. Ground surface rupture occurs when movement along a fault is sufficient to cause a gap or rupture where the upper edge of the fault zone intersects the earth surface. The potential for ground rupture at the project site is considered to be very low due to the absence of active or potentially active faults onsite. Strong seismic ground shaking The subject site is located in an area that is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. Numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located in the region. Significant damage to structures may be avoided during large earthquakes by designing proposed structures to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life in compliance with the California Building Code. Therefore, although project implementation would occur in a seismically active area, impacts would be less than significant with regard to impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic-related ground failure Liquefaction Locally, the project site is underlain by several hundred feet of alluvial deposits which include distal alluvial fan deposits generated from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north interlayered with fluvial deposits from the meandering Santa Ana River to the south, resulting in interlayered fine- and coarse- grained deposits of clays, silts, and sands. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction. The Geotechnical Report concluded that groundwater is anticipated in excess of 100 feet below the ground surface. Based on the absence of groundwater, and the medium dense to very dense alluvium, the potential for liquefaction at the site is negligible and not a design consideration. Subsidence Similar to liquefaction, subsidence is the sinking or collapse of the ground. The difference is that subsidence is a more gradual phenomenon and is not directly related to seismic activity. Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground with little or no horizontal movement. This condition is usually associated with the extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater from below the ground surface, or the organic decomposition of peat deposits, with a resultant loss in volume. The 110 110 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 65 Geotechnical Assessment of the project site did not identify subsidence as an issue of concern for the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not be adversely affected by ground subsidence. Landslides The project site is relatively flat and is surrounded by similar topography. There are no extreme changes in elevation at or near the project site that would cause the site to be susceptible to landslides. In addition, according to the project’s Geotechnical Report, landslides are not mapped on or near the site. Due to the relatively level topography at the site, the report concluded that landslides are not present at the property or at a location that could impact the project site. Therefore, there is no impact to the project site rom landslides. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading of the ground can occur in gently to steeply sloping ground that is saturated, or in connection with seismically induced liquefaction. The Geotechnical Assessment of the project site did not identify lateral spreading as an issue of concern for the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not be adversely affected by this phenomenon. 7(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. During the Geotechnical Investigation, native alluvial soils were encountered at all of the boring locations, with 11 of the 18 borings showing undocumented artificial fill over alluvial soil. The fill material was found to be silty sand with gravel, medium dense, damp dark brown; fine to coarse sand. Alluvial soils below were generally similar silty sand, very dense, damp, yellowish brown; fine to coarse sand; but with additional gravel and cobbles. Where the undocumented artificial fill, associated with previous site development, was encountered, it was found in the upper ½ to 4 feet of the geotechnical borings drilled. Site construction may unearth the undocumented fill, therefore, mitigation has been identified (See Mitigation Measure GEO-1 below) to reduce impacts to less than significant. In addition to the excavation and removal of the fill material., the development of the proposed project will require grading preparation, excavation, trenching and paving activities that could result in soil erosion if exposed to periods of high wind or storm related events. To control the potential for erosion to occur, all construction contractors are required to implement a dust control plan in compliance SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce wind erosion (see Section 3, Air Quality). Additionally, the general contractor will be required to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines Best Management Practices in order to reduce the potential for water erosion during construction (see Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality). Therefore, with implementation of a dust control plan and a SWPPP, impacts in regard to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be reduced to less than significant. 7(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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. See response to 7(a), regarding ground failure, including liquefaction. 111 111 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 66 7(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are those that shrink/swell with changes in soil moisture content. The most common problems occurring with development on these soils are related to building construction where changes in soil moisture content can cause alternate shrinking and swelling resulting in cracked foundations. The expansion potential of the on-site soils was tested during the Geotechnical Investigation of the site and determined to be very low. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 7(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? Determination: No Impact. No septic tanks or other wastewater disposal system are proposed. The proposed project will be connected to the existing 8-inch sewer main in 9th Street (see discussion in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems. 7(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The 2010 General Plan Chapter 6, Resource Conservation, states that during the preparation of the General Plan update, a records search was conducted for the City by the San Bernardino County Museum. The results of the records search were that, previous geologic mapping of the Planning Area indicated that soils and geologic formations within the Planning Area have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. However, the City continues to screen development proposals in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and will require the research of any site that may be determined to have potential resources. The project site is highly disturbed with urban uses and it is unlikely that paleontological resources would be discovered. However, because this is unknown, and the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the undocumented fill and upper portion of the alluvium are not considered suitable for the support of compacted fill and settlement-sensitive structures (habitable buildings); remedial grading of the surficial soil will be required. This activity may unearth previously unknown paleontological resources and mitigation has been identified (See Mitigation Measure GEO-2 below). MITIGATION MEASURES GEO-1 The Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the project (See Appendix H) provided a list of recommendations for the development of the project site. The Property Owner/Developer shall develop the site in compliance with the recommendations set forth in Section 8 of the Geotechnical Investigation and Percolation Test Results, Warehouse Development North of East 9th Street and West of Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California, February 2019, and as required under the California Building Code. GEO-2 If any paleontological resources (i.e., plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Paleontologist to monitor construction activities, and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific 112 112 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 67 recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the monitoring program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • A copy of the monitoring program shall be submitted the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Services Director or his/her designee include a schedule for the periodic monitoring during grading and excavation operations. • The monitor shall have the ability to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of the soils that may contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. • The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of larger fossils in a timely manner. • The extent of the monitoring may be reduced if, in the opinion of the paleontologist, potentially fossiliferous units are not found in the subsurface, or if present that they are determined to be a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources. IMPACT CONCLUSION Adherence with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation for the development of the project site, and implementation of a monitoring program should paleontological resources be discovered during site preparation, grading or other construction activities would ensure that impacts associated with Geology/Soils and Paleontological Resources would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, the potential project impacts related to Geology and Soils, and Paleontological Resources would be less than significant. 113 113 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 68 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?  b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?  DISCUSSION 8(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. A Greenhouse Gas Assessment was prepared for the project (Appendix I). Global Climate Change (GCC) refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2 (carbon dioxide), N2O (nitrous oxide), CH4 (methane), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as greenhouse gases (GHG). These gases are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity. Without the natural greenhouse gas effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61° Fahrenheit (F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature. For the purposes of Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix I), the focus was on emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O because these gasses are the primary contributors to Global Climate Change (GCC) from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases. On October 17, 2017, SCAQMD, in conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and other California air districts, released the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) v2016.3.2. The purpose of this update to the model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources; and to quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. 114 114 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 69 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) A full LCA for construction and operational activity was not conducted due to the lack of consensus guidance on LCA methodology at this time. Life‐cycle analysis (i.e., assessing economy‐wide GHG emissions from the processes in manufacturing and transporting all raw materials used in the project development, infrastructure and on-going operations) depends on emission factors or econometric factors that are not well established for all processes. At this time a LCA would be extremely speculative and thus has not been prepared. Additionally, SCAQMD recommends analyzing direct and indirect project GHG emissions generated within California and not life-cycle emissions because the life-cycle effects from a project could occur outside of California, might not be very well understood or documented, and would be challenging to mitigate. Additionally, the science to calculate life cycle emissions is not yet established or well defined, therefore SCAQMD has not recommended, and is not requiring, life-cycle emissions analysis. Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and (CH4) from construction activities. For project emissions associated with construction, GHGs were quantified and amortized over the life of the project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the project, SCAQMD recommends calculating total GHG emissions for all construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. This was done for the proposed project. Operations Emissions Operational activities associated with the proposed project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the following primary sources: • Area Source Emissions • Energy Use Emissions • Mobile Source Emissions • On-site Emissions • Solid Waste • Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution Area Source Emissions Landscape Maintenance Equipment Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. The emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in the CalEEMod model. 115 115 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 70 Energy Source Emissions (Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity) GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEMod™ default parameters were used. Mobile Source Emissions Vehicles Trips and Trip Lengths Project mobile source GHG impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the project. The project related operational GHG impacts would derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the project. Per the 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Rancho Cucamonga, California - Trip Generation Analysis (TG) (see Appendix M), the proposed project is expected to generate a total of approximately 413 two- way trips per day (actual vehicles). The project trip generation includes 86 two-way truck trips per day. The following truck fleet mix was obtained from the TG and utilized for the purposes of estimating the truck trip generation for the site: • 17.4 percent of the total trucks as 2-axle trucks (LHD) • 23.3 percent of the total trucks as 3-axle trucks (MHD) • 59.3 percent of the total trucks as 4+-axle trucks (HHD) For passenger car trips, a one-way trip length of 16.6 miles was assumed as contained in the CalEEMod model defaults. For trucks, an average one-way trip length of 53.26 miles was derived from distances from the project site to the far edges of the Air Basin. Assuming 50 percent of trucks travel to the Port of Los Angles and Port of Long Beach and the remaining 50 percent of trucks travel to either the Cajon Pass (San Bernardino County), Desert Center (eastern Riverside County), Santa Clarita (northern Los Angeles County) and/or the San Diego County Line, a weighted truck trip length of 53.26 miles was determined. For purposes of analysis, and as a conservative measure, a truck trip length of 55 miles was used. It is appropriate to stop the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) calculation at the boundary of the Air Basin because any activity beyond that boundary would be speculative and occur in a different Air Basin; this approach is also consistent with professional industry practice. • Project site to the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach: 58.25 miles • Project site to Banning Pass: 58.47 miles • Project site to San Diego County Line: 66.03 miles • Project site to Cajon Pass: 28.70 miles • Project site to Downtown Los Angeles: 39.90 miles • Average Weighted Truck Trip Length = 53.26 miles On-Site Equipment Emissions It is common for industrial warehouse buildings to require cargo handling equipment to move empty containers and empty chassis to and from the various pieces of cargo handling equipment that receive 116 116 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 71 and distribute containers. The most common type of cargo handling equipment is the yard truck which is designed for moving cargo containers. The cargo handling equipment is assumed to have a horsepower (hp) range of approximately 175 hp to 200 hp. Based on the latest available information from SCAQMD; for example, high-cube warehouse projects typically have 3.6-yard trucks per million sf of building space. For the proposed project, based on the maximum square footage of the warehouse building space proposed (approximately 227,912 square feet), on-site modeled operational equipment includes two 200 hp, non-diesel- powered yard trucks operating at 4 hours a day for 365 days of the year. Solid Waste Industrial land uses result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A large percentage of this waste will be diverted from landfills by a variety of means, such as reducing the amount of waste generated, recycling materials such as cardboard and plastic), and/or composting (landscape waste). The remainder of the waste not diverted will be disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions from landfills are associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste associated with the proposed project were calculated by the CalEEMod model using default parameters. Water Supply Treatment and Distribution Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat and distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEMod default parameters were used. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project were estimated to be 3,662.40 MTCO2e per year as summarized in Table 14, Total Project Greenhouse Gas(annual). 117 117 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 72 Table 14 Total Project Greenhouse Gas (annual) Emission Source Emissions (metric tons per year) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E Annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years 39.64 0.01 0.00 39.79 Area 0.01 3.00E-05 0.00 0.01 Energy 209.18 8.07E-03 2.04E-03 209.99 Mobile Sources (Passenger Cars) 570.53 0.01 0.00 570.84 Mobile Sources (Trucks) 2,373.7 7 0.11 0.00 2,376.53 On-Site Equipment 50.83 0.02 0.00 51.24 Waste 45.13 2.67 0.00 111.82 Water Usage 244.28 1.79 0.04 302.19 Total CO2E (All Sources) 3,662.40 SCAQMD Threshold (CO2e) 10,000 Significant? NO Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 3-1. The project net total GHG emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. Table 14 shows that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions. For CEQA purposes, the City has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial evidence. SCAQMD’s adopted numerical threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for industrial stationary source emissions was selected as the significance criterion. SCAQMD-adopted industrial threshold was selected by the City because the proposed project is analogous to an industrial use much more closely than any other land use such as commercial or residential in terms of its expected operating characteristics. The project consists of three warehouse buildings, characteristic of an industrial operation. Analysis of the project’s traffic generation was based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 for industrial and warehouse uses. Also, 10,000 MTCO2e is used as the significance threshold by many local government lead agencies for logistics projects throughout the SCAG region since SCAQMD adopted this threshold for its own use. Further, to ensure that the threshold is conservative in its application, although SCAQMD uses its adopted 10,000 MTCO2e threshold to determine the significance of stationary source emissions for industrial projects, the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold used in this analysis is applied to all sources of project-related GHG emissions whether stationary source, mobile source, area source, or other. Use of this threshold is also consistent with guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, as such the City has opted to use a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook. Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The 118 118 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 73 latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 10,000 MTCO2e per year for industrial projects. This threshold is based on the review of 711 CEQA projects. As shown on Table 14, the project would result in approximately 3,662.40 MTCO2e per year; thus would not exceed the SCAQMD/City’s screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, project- related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change and no mitigation or further analysis is required. 8(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Rancho Cucamonga Sustainability Community Action Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga released the Sustainable Community Action Plan in April 2017. In order to align with the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals, the Plan identifies steps that the City can take to contribute towards a GHG reduction target that reduce emissions to 15 percent below 2008 levels by 2020. Policies and actions to achieve long term GHG reduction targets beyond 2020 that are further out in the future will be considered as the City identifies updates or revisions to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. It should be noted that the Plan does not authorize or mandate any given activity or initiative on the environment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is therefore not a project under CEQA. As such, consistency with the Plan is not required and will not be used to make any CEQA findings. California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan CARB’s Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions in support of State Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) which requires the State to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Many of the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan are not applicable at the project level, such as long-term technological improvements to reduce emissions from vehicles. Some measures are applicable and supported by the project, such as energy efficiency. Finally, while some measures are not directly applicable, the project would not conflict with their implementation. Reduction measures are grouped into 18 action categories, as follows: 1. California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Partner Jurisdictions. Implement a broad-based California cap-and-trade program to provide a firm limit on emissions. Link the California cap–and-trade program with other Western Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market system to achieve greater environmental and economic benefits for California.4 Ensure California’s program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements for market-based mechanisms. 2. California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards. Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals. 3. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities). 119 119 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 74 4. Renewables Portfolio Standards. Achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide. 5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 6. Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. 7. Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. 8. Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement activities. 9. Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 megawatts of solar-electric capacity under California’s existing solar programs. 10. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium- (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle efficiencies. Aerodynamic efficiency measures for HD trucks pulling trailers 53-feet or longer that include improvements in trailer aerodynamics and use of rolling resistance tires were adopted in 2008 and went into effect in 2010.5 Future, yet to be determined improvements, includes hybridization of MD and HD trucks. 11. Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-benefits. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries. 12. High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high-speed rail system. 13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. 14. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to reduce high warming global potential gases. 15. Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting and other beneficial uses of organic materials, and mandate commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste. 16. Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy generation. The 2020 target for carbon sequestration is 5 million MTCO2E/YR. 17. Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. 18. Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five-year Scoping Plan update determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020. 120 120 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 75 Table 15, Scoping Plan Consistency Summary, summarizes the project’s consistency with the State Scoping Plan. Table 15 shows that the project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, recycling, and landscaping. Table 15 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Action Supporting Measures Consistency Cap-and-Trade Program -- Not applicable. These programs involve capping emissions from electricity generation, industrial facilities, and broad scoped fuels. Caps do not directly affect manufacturing projects. Light-Duty Vehicle Standards T-1 Not applicable. This is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. Energy Efficiency E-1 Consistent. The project will include a variety of building, water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with 2019 Title 24 requirements. E-2 CR-1 CR-2 Renewables Portfolio Standard E-3 Not applicable. Establishes the minimum statewide renewable energy mix. Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Not applicable. Establishes reduced carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Regional Transportation- Related Greenhouse Gas Targets T-3 Not applicable. This is a statewide measure and is not within the purview of this Project. Vehicle Efficiency Measures T-4 Not applicable. Identifies measures such as minimum tire- fuel efficiency, lower friction oil, and reduction in air conditioning use. Goods Movement T-5 Not applicable. Identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories. While these measures are yet to be implemented and will be voluntary, the proposed Project would not interfere with their implementation. T-6 E-4 Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Program E-4 Consistent. The MSR program sets a goal for use of solar systems throughout the state as a whole. While the project currently does not include solar energy generation, the building roof structure will be designed to support solar panels in the future. 121 121 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 76 Table 15 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary (continued) Action Supporting Measures Consistency Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles T-7 Not applicable. MD and HD trucks and trailers working from the proposed warehouses will be subject to aerodynamic and hybridization requirements as established by ARB; no feature of the project would interfere with implementation of these requirements and programs. T-8 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 High Speed Rail T-9 Not applicable. Supports increased mobility choice. Green Building Strategy GB-1 Consistent. The project will include a variety of building, water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with 2019 Title 24 requirements. High Global Warming Potential Gases H-1 Not applicable. The proposed warehouses are not substantial sources of high GWP emissions and will comply with any future changes in air conditioning, fire protection suppressant, and other requirements. H-2 H-3 H-4 H-5 H-6 H-7 Recycling and Waste RW-1 Consistent. The project will be required recycle a minimum of 50 percent from construction activities and warehouse operations per State and City requirements. RW-2 RW-3 Sustainable Forests F-1 Not applicable. This measure requires projects to increase carbon sequestration by increasing on-site trees per the project landscaping plan. Water W-1 Consistent. The project will include use of low-flow fixtures and efficient landscaping pursuant to the current CalGreen requirements. W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 W-6 Agriculture A-1 Not applicable. The project is not an agricultural use. Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 3-2. State Senate Bill 32 (SB32) Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are orders from the State’s Executive Branch for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The goal of Executive Order S-3-05 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 was codified by the Legislature as the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). As discussed 122 122 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 77 above, the proposed project is consistent with AB 32. Therefore, the project does not conflict with this component of Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Orders also establish goals to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. However, studies have shown that, in order to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets, aggressive technologies in the transportation and energy sectors, including electrification and the decarbonization of fuel, will be required. In its Climate Change Scoping Plan, CARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.” In the First Scoping Plan Update, however, CARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” Unlike the 2020 and 2030 reduction targets of AB 32 and SB 32, respectively the 2050 target of Executive Order S-3-05 has not been codified. Accordingly, the 2050 reduction target has not been the subject of any analysis by CARB. For example, CARB has not prepared an update to the aforementioned Scoping Plan that provides guidance to local agencies as to how they may seek to contribute to the achievement of the 2050 reduction target. In 2017, the California Supreme Court examined the need to use the Executive Order S-3-05 2050 reduction target in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497 (Cleveland National). The case arose from SANDAG’s adoption of its 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, which included its Sustainable Communities Strategy. On review, the Supreme Court held that SANDAG did not violate CEQA by not considering the Executive Order S-3-05 2050 reduction target. The proposed project is much smaller in size and scope in comparison to the Regional Transportation Plan examined in the Cleveland National case. Accordingly, there is no information presently available to assess the proposed project’s consistency with regard to the 2050 target of Executive Order S-3-05. The 2050 reduction target of Executive Order S-3-05 has not been codified, unlike the 2020 and 2030 reduction targets of AB 32 and SB 32, respectively. Accordingly, the 2050 reduction target has not been the subject of any analysis by CARB. For example, CARB has not prepared an update to its Scoping Plan that provides guidance to local agencies as to how they may seek to contribute to the achievement of the 2050 reduction target. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds on the 2008 Scoping Plan in order to achieve the 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2030. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework that will achieve the GHG reductions include: • Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing ZEV buses and trucks. When adopted, this measure would apply to all trucks accessing the project site, this may include existing trucks or new trucks purchased by the project proponent could be eligible for incentives that expedite the project’s implementation of ZEVs. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030). When adopted, this measure would apply to all fuel purchased and used by the project in the State. • Implementing SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030. When adopted, this measure would apply when electricity is provided to the project by a utility company. 123 123 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 78 • California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near- zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. When adopted, this measure would apply to all trucks accessing the project site, this may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector. • Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on reducing methane and hydroflurocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030. When adopted, the project would be required to comply with this measure and reduce SLPS accordingly. • Continued implementation of SB 375. The project is not within the purview of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict with this measure. • Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps. When adopted, the project would be required to comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program if it generates emissions from sectors covered by Cap-and-Trade. • 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030. When adopted, the project would be required to comply with this measure if it were to utilize any fuel from refineries. • Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink. This is a statewide measure that would not apply to the project. As shown in Table 15, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the project. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SCAQMD Interim Emissions Thresholds SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the Air Basin. SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if it is the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the SCAQMD helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions. In 2008, SCAQMD formed a working group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the Air Basin. The working group developed several different options that are contained in SCAQMD’s Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, that could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim thresholds consist of the following tiered approach: • Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. 124 124 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 79 • Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions. • Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant: o Residential and Commercial land use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e per year o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year • Tier 4 has the following options: o Option 1: Reduce BAU emissions by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined. o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures o Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP): which includes residents and employees: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans; o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans • Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold. The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate. SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air quality permits. At this time, it is unknown if the proposed project would include stationary sources of emissions subject to SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the proposed project requires a stationary permit, it would be subject to the applicable SCAQMD regulations. SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes the following rules: • Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials. • Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD. • Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties. 125 125 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 80 MITIGATION MEASURES The GHG analysis concluded that impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is required. IMPACT CONCLUSION Regarding impact statement 8(a), as shown on Table 15, the proposed project would result in approximately 3,662.40 MTCO2e per year; which would not exceed the SCAQMD/City’s screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. Thus, project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change and no mitigation or further analysis is required. Regarding impact statement 8(b) the proposed project would not conflict with any of CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the project. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. At the regional level, compliance with SCAQMD rules should future land uses at the project site include any stationary sources of emissions subject to SCAQMD permits, would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. 126 126 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 81 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS 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 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?   f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?  g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?  DISCUSSION 9(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated; and 9(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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities that include the demolition of existing buildings, including the removal of asbestos containing building materials, and the excavation and removal of any contaminated soil associated with past businesses at the project site are discussed below in response 9(d). This section focuses on the proposed project and potential future uses. 127 127 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 82 Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are heavily regulated by a range of federal, State and local agencies. One of the primary hazardous materials regulatory agencies is the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC is authorized by the U.S. EPA to enforce and implement federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. Federal and State hazardous materials regulations require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials to obtain a hazardous materials permit and submit a business plan to its local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA also ensures local compliance with all applicable hazardous materials regulations. Construction and operation of the proposed project would require the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of limited quantities of common hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, solvents, paint, fertilizers, pesticides, and other similar materials. The transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials are strictly regulated by State and federal agencies to minimize adverse hazards from accidental release. Should the new tenants use hazardous materials, compliance with requirements for transport, storage and disposal including implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, and a Spill Contingency Plan, reviewed and approved by the CUPA will be required. Therefore, with implementation of these plans, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment related to hazardous materials. Mitigation measure HAZ-1 has been identified to require the preparation and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Spill Contingency Plan should a they be required by a future tenant. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the CUPA is the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division which also manages the following hazardous waste programs: • Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory • California Accidental Release Program • Underground Storage Tanks • Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act/Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan • Hazardous Waste Generation and Onsite Treatment • Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Inventory Any business in Rancho Cucamonga that transports, handles, uses, generates, or stores hazardous materials is required to submit a “Business Emergency/Contingency Plan” to the CUPA. In addition, review and approval of any hazardous material use or storage is required by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District to ensure that activity meets all Uniform Fire Code requirements. At this time there is no known tenant for the project site. However, General Industrial type land uses that could occupy the site may utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. Such materials could be stored and used at the project site. In addition to compliance with CUPA requirements regarding hazardous materials, the City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and federal requirements and in 2013 completed an update to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prior to occupancy of the buildings the Planning Department would review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding land uses. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire District would be the first responder for any hazardous material emergencies that may occur at the project site and has a dedicated Hazardous Materials Team at Day Creek Station 173 (north of Base Line Road). This specialized team is trained in both biological and 128 128 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 83 chemical hazardous materials emergency response. Hazardous materials emergencies are most likely to occur on local highways and in the industrial area of the City. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-10 (City’s standard conditions) and 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 mitigation measures are located at the end of this section. 9(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? Determination: No Impact. A Google Earth search of the surrounding area showed that there are no schools located within ¼ mile of the project site. The project site is approximately 1/3 mile east of the nearest existing elementary school, Los Amigos Elementary School located at 8498 9th Street and approximately 1/3 mile north of the San Antonio Christian School located at 722 E. 8th Street. At this time there are no known tenants for the proposed warehouse buildings. 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 land uses including residential school uses. 9(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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A search of Cal EPA’s environmental databases, Envirostor, Geotracker, and the Cortese List, showed that there are no hazardous materials sites located on or near the project site. See sites https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/report_permitted_public, and https://www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov accessed May 6, 2019; and https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/dtsc- cortese-list, accessed October 15, 2019. The project site was not located in any CalEPA environmental database. In addition, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project (Appendix J). The subject property was initially developed with residential properties in the southeast portion of the project site and the remainder of the property was progressively developed with commercial/light industrial buildings beginning with the first one in the northeastern corner in 1959 until 1985 when all other industrial buildings were present along the eastern and southern portions of the property. The Phase I ESA made the following findings: • Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) is defined by the ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13 as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. No evidence of RECs was seen during the Phase I ESA. • Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) is defined by the ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13 as a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. No evidence of CRECs was seen during the Phase I ESA. 129 129 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 84 • Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is defined by the ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13 as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. No evidence of HRECs was seen during the Phase I ESA. • Other Environmental Considerations (OEC) warrant discussion, but do not qualify as RECs as defined by the ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13. These include, but are not limited to, de minimis conditions and/or environmental considerations such as the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), radon, mold, and lead in drinking water, which can affect the liabilities and financial obligations of the client, the health and safety of site occupants, and the value and marketability of the subject property. o During AEI's site reconnaissance, oil-stained soil in the vicinity of an air compressor adjacent and west of the industrial building at 8768-G East 9th Street was observed. The air compressor was observed to be leaking oil and the ground in the vicinity of two 5-gallon oil containers was oil-stained. The air compressor has reportedly been in use for at least 20 years per the site contact and is used in a sand blasting process (to remove bark and dirt from hardwood). o According to historical sources, Sunderland Press, a printing facility, occupied 8758-A East 9th Street from approximately 1982 to 1992. The business had a dark room in the southwestern corner of the building and processed film and used hazardous substances. Additionally, according to a representative of the subject property owner, a strong odor of gasoline was present in the sink and bathroom plumbing in the southeastern portion of the building when her business moved into the building in 1992. Based on the length of time these operations were conducted and the lack of specific information regarding the types of materials used by this facility, the historical printing operations were considered an environmental concern, and were investigated further as discussed below. According to files with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), a 1991 complaint was filed for the 8768 East 9th Street. The complaint noted that soil impacted with paints was present in 1991 west of the building, near the sandblasting area. No further investigation appears to have been performed in the area. The paint-impacted soils were considered an environmental concern and were investigated further as discussed below. Subsequent to the issuance of the Phase I ESA report to Phelan Development Company, a Phase II investigation was conducted to evaluate the above concerns. Seven borings were advanced at buildings 8768-G and 8758-A for advancement of the borings to the target depth of 10 feet bgs. Each attempt to reach the target depth was met with refusal at a depth of 5 feet bgs. Borings B-1 through B-4, located near Unit 8768-G, were sampled for soil only. After soil samples were collected from borings B-5 through B-7, located at 8758-A, the borings were converted into temporary soil gas probes which were installed at a depth of 5 feet bgs. Soil samples collected from a depth of 5 feet bgs from each boring were analyzed for TPH and VOCs. Neither TPH nor VOCs were detected in the soil samples submitted for analysis. Soil samples collected from a depth of 1-foot bgs from each boring were analyzed for metals. Metals were detected in each of the samples; however, the concentrations were below their regulatory screening levels and/or are within established background concentrations. Soil gas samples collected from borings B-5, B-6, and B-7 were analyzed for VOCs. Although low concentrations of VOCs 130 130 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 85 were detected in each soil gas sample, the concentrations were below their respective regulatory screening levels. Based on the results of this investigation, no release was identified in the areas sampled. Therefore, no further action is recommended in the areas investigated. • Although no septic systems were observed, the property owner's representative reported that septic systems may be present at 8768-F and G, and possibly B and C (east side of property). The Phase II sampling at the 8768-G Building, while not specifically conducted for the septic system, did not identify impacts. Sampling was not conducted at the other 8768 buildings. Although no additional investigation is recommended at this time, it is recommended that the septic tanks be properly removed when the buildings are razed, along with any visually impacted soils. • Minor staining of the ground surface was identified near Building 8768-C, apparently from former dune buggy/race car service activities. This staining is considered a de minimis condition. It is recommended that the stained soils (and any other staining identified during clearing/grading), be properly excavated and disposed. • Numerous containers of hazardous substances/petroleum products were identified at the property. Given the proposed demolition of the buildings for site redevelopment, it is recommended that all containers be properly disposed prior to razing the buildings. Also, given the limited access/significant material storage/debris in some of the buildings which prevented full interior observations, it is recommended that all materials and debris be removed prior to demolition in case there are additional containers to be disposed. • Approximately 10 cubic yards of soil was observed to have been dumped on a gravel-covered driveway on the eastern side of the residential property at 8738 E. 9th Street. The source of the soil is unknown. No indications of hazardous materials were observed in the soil. The soil should be removed during clearing and grading. • EPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requires that a thorough asbestos survey be performed prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. This requirement may be enforced by federal, State and local regulatory agencies, and specifies that all suspect ACMs be sampled to determine the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition activities which may disturb them to prevent potential exposure to workers, building occupants, and the environment. Similarly, OSHA regulations require that specific work practices be implemented when handling construction materials and debris that contain asbestos and/or lead-containing materials. • Based on the planned demolition of the buildings, the Phase I ESA recommended that the property owner consult with a certified Lead Risk Assessor to determine options for control of possible LBP hazards. Stringent local and State regulations may apply to LBP in association with building demolition/renovations and worker/occupant protection. It should be noted that construction activities that disturb materials or paints containing any amount of lead may be subject to certain requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62. In addition to the Phase I ESA, the applicant engaged the services of an environmental firm specializing in asbestos and lead inspections, to conduct an inspection for ACMs (Appendix J). The asbestos inspection included 145 random samples from ceilings, floors, walls, and roofs. Of the total, 110 samples showed that no ACM was detected. Of the remaining 35 samples where the building material 131 131 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 86 was found to contain ACM, all were found to be in good condition. Some of the 145 samples were from acoustic ceiling tiles where the condition of the materials was found to be good under existing conditions, but that the materials were friable and that there was a high potential for damage to occur if the tiles were disturbed, such as during demolition. The term friable refers to a material that can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to a powder by hand pressure. (https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm) Non-friable ACM include building materials such as vinyl flooring, asphalt roofing products, mastic. These materials are not generally susceptible to pressure so that they are not easily crumbled or pulverized, which releases particles into the air. The City’s General Plan Program EIR summarizes the regulatory environment for asbestos. This discussion is summarized herein. The US EPA and California EPA (CalEPA) have identified asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 12 of the Federal Clean Air Act. In addition, CARB has identified asbestos as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (Section 39650 et seq.). Asbestos is also regulated as a potential worker safety hazard under the authority of the CalOSHA. Under the various rules and regulations promulgated by these agencies, emissions of asbestos from asbestos-related demolition or construction activities are prohibited. Asbestos abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California Department of Health Services (DHS). In addition, CalOSHA has regulations to protect worker safety during potential exposure to asbestos under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529 (Asbestos). All demolition that could result in the release of asbestos must be conducted according to CalOSHA standards. These standards were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. At the regional level, SCAQMD’s Rule 1403 provides guidelines for the proper removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials. In accordance with Rule 1403, structures that may contain asbestos are required to be subject to an asbestos survey by a Certified Asbestos Consultant (certified by OSHA) to identify building materials that contain asbestos. Under this rule, removal of asbestos must include prior SCAQMD notification; compliance with removal procedures and time schedules; asbestos-handling and clean-up procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements. At the local level, the County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Services; San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), Hazardous Materials Division; Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Hazardous Material (Hazmat) Team all provide oversight of asbestos removal and/or disposal. All of the buildings on the project site would be demolished. During demolition, precautions must be taken to contain any ACMs in controlled conditions so as not to risk friable material from being released. The City’s General Plan Standard Conditions of Approval as set forth in the General Plan Program EIR (identified herein as Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 to HAZ-4) would ensure that impacts associated with the accidental release of asbestos and other materials as described herein would be less than significant. Mitigation measures are located at the end of this section. 9(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. 132 132 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 87 The project site is located on 9th Street west of Vineyard Avenue and is approximately 2.6 miles from the Ontario International Airport’s northern runway, located in the City of Ontario. According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (updated in 2013), the airport’s runway safety zones extend from both ends of the runways in the City of Ontario, but no aircraft safety zones affect Rancho Cucamonga. Departing planes primarily fly over Ontario and Montclair, and most commercial jet arrival flights cross Fontana and Ontario. Smaller private planes fly over southern Rancho Cucamonga as they take off and land, avoiding the jet aircraft flight patterns. The FAA provides regulations regarding protecting airspace around airports and is concerned about the consequences that certain land uses, buildings, and associated activities can have on the airport and aircraft operations. Under Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), the FAA requires notice of proposed construction in excess of certain heights that may affect the safety of aircraft operations. FAR Part 77, Subpart B, requires that the FAA be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and one foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) for a distance of 20,000 feet from nearest point of any runway. Beyond the FAA Height Notification Area boundary, any object taller than 200 feet requires FAA notification. The project site is located within the FAA’s Height Notification Area; an area that extends north of Foothill Blvd. Therefore, prior to issuance of a building permit or 30 days to commencement of construction, the applicant must notify the FAA Regional office using Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. This requirement has been identified as Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 in the Mitigation Measures section below. Finally, the project site is located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Cable airport, a general aviation airport located in the City of Upland. The project site is outside this airport’s land use zone. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with development of the project site regarding Cable airport. 9(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City’s Emergency Management Division is responsible for maintaining and updating the City’s emergency plans, which includes evacuation plans. In addition, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requires a Fire Protection Plan for all development within hazardous fire areas; although the project site is not located within a hazardous fire area. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identified the south west part of the City as a Focus Area for change either because there are still undeveloped properties or because residential neighborhoods are moving closer to existing light industrial and warehouse uses. Therefore, it is important that existing roadways and emergency routes are maintained in support of emergency vehicles and that the proposed project provide adequate site access for emergency vehicles. The project site will have two points of ingress/egress from 9th Street. As described in the General Plan Program EIR, Transportation Section, the plan check and building permit process by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District includes review of access for emergency vehicles, in accordance with the California Fire Code. Compliance with the requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance would ensure that adequate emergency access is available for all new development and redevelopment projects. In addition, the project site is in an existing developed area of the City where roadways already exist, so no new roadways are required. Standard Condition of Approval SC 4.16-4 applies to the proposed project regarding emergency access. This condition is identified in the Mitigation Measures section below as Mitigation Measure HAZ-8. 133 133 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 88 9(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The northern portion of the City is located within the urban-wildland interface where the City meets the foothills and the San Gabriel Mountains beyond. The project site is located in the southwest portion of the City; an area that is not located within a Fire Hazards Severity Zone as shown on Figure S-1 of the City’s Local Hazards Mitigation Plan. Therefore, the site’s exposure to a wildland fire would be negligible and no mitigation is required for this issue. However, the General Plan identifies measures that are applicable to the project, and therefore, are incorporated as Mitigation Measures HAZ-7 and HAZ-8 to comply with City code. MITIGATION MEASURES The City’s General Plan provides Standard Conditions of Approval for development projects. Those that apply to the project are listed here as mitigation measures to ensure compliance during construction or operation. The Phase I ESA includes the following recommendations that shall be implemented as part of the demolition and grading activities. Recommendations are included as mitigation measures and will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. HAZ-1 Prior to grading and/or demolition activities at the site, the applicant shall hire qualitied/specialized grading and demolition contractors that will be responsible for completing the recommendations made in the project’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: • Although no septic systems were observed on site, should any be encountered during demolition and/or grading, septic tanks shall be properly removed when the buildings are razed, along with any visually impacted soils. • Stained soil observed during the Phase I ESA, or that may be encountered during grading shall be properly excavated and disposed of. • Numerous containers of hazardous substances/petroleum products that were observed on site, and any other containers encountered during demolition or grading shall be removed and disposed. • The approximately 10 cubic yards of soil dumped at 8738 e 9th Street shall be excavated and removed from the site during clearing/grading. • Conduct an asbestos survey prior to demolition activities that may disturb ACMs. Should ACMs be discovered specific work practices must be implemented when handling construction materials and debris that contain asbestos and/or lead-containing materials per OSHA requirements. • Prior to demolition of buildings the property owner shall consult with a certified Lead Risk Assessor to determine options for control of possible lead based paint hazards. Should it be determined that LBPs are present in the buildings, the qualified contractor hired to demolish 134 134 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 89 the buildings that may contain LBPs shall comply with all requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62. The City’s general plan provides Standard Conditions of Approval for development projects. Those that apply to the project are listed here as mitigation measures to ensure compliance during construction or operation. HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for any building where the tenant may use, store and dispose of hazardous materials, the tenant shall prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and, if a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (generally associated with manufacturing) to the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division for review and approval. The plan must also be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department. The plan(s) shall describe equipment, workforce, procedures, and training to prevent, control, and provide adequate countermeasures to prevent release of hazardous substances. HAZ-3 (SC 4.8-5) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), which prevents the accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances. It does so by requiring stationary sources using hazardous materials that exceed a threshold quantity to develop and submit a Risk Management Plan that addresses the potential impacts of accidental hazardous materials releases and that includes measures to reduce hazards through prevention, response, and remediation measures. HAZ-4 (SC 4.8-6) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, which provides guidelines for the proper removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials. In accordance with Rule 1403, structures that may contain asbestos are required to be subject to an asbestos survey by a Certified Asbestos Consultant (certified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA]) to identify building materials that contain asbestos. Asbestos removal should include prior notification to SCAQMD, and compliance with removal procedures and time schedules; asbestos handling and clean-up procedures; and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements under this rule. HAZ-5 (SC 4.8-7) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1532.1), which requires removal of lead-based paint or other materials containing lead to be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California Department of Health Services. All demolition that could result in the release of lead must be conducted to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. HAZ-6 (SC 4.8-8) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Health and Safety Code (Sections 39650 et seq.) and the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1529), which prohibit emissions of asbestos from asbestos-related demolition or construction activities; require medical examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities that could disturb asbestos; specify precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers; and require notice to Federal and local government agencies prior to beginning renovation or demolition that could disturb 135 135 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 90 asbestos. The standards were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. HAZ-7 (SC 4.8-9) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), which requires notification the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be notified of any project that may encroach upon established navigable airspace. FAA notification, review, and approval are required for any construction or alteration of a temporary or permanent structure, equipment, highway, railroad, roadway, or natural growth that extends into an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway that is 3,200 feet or longer. Note: the measure has been modified from the condition to focus specifically on that requirement that applies to the project site. HAZ-8 (SC 4.16-4) All future roadway improvements shall comply with the City’s Roadway Functional Design Guidelines, which include the number of lanes, median improvements, access restrictions, intersection spacing, curbside parking, required rights-of-way, and easement access based on the roadway designation. Closely related to roadway design would be the provision of adequate line of sight, in accordance with the City’s Intersection Line of Sight design guidelines and General Design Guidelines that address points of access, reduction of conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, minimal impacts on adjacent properties, adequate maneuvering areas, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and interconnected public and private sidewalks. Roadway improvement plans shall show compliance with these standards, as reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Department during the plan check process. HAZ-9 (SC 4.8-10) Future development shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures consistent with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable vegetation, and climate of the proposed development site. The Plan must also address water supply, access, building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel modification areas are imposed on new developments. HAZ-10 (SC 4.8-11) The State Board of Forestry and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) shall continue to implement the California Fire Plan for all Future development, redevelopment, and existing development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the City’s Sphere of Influence, to reduce wildland fire hazards at the San Bernardino National Forest and foothills in Rancho Cucamonga. IMPACT CONCLUSION Compliance with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval would ensure that impacts associated with the project regarding Hazards and Hazardous Materials would be less than significant. 136 136 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 91 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?  b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?  c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner, which would:  i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?  ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?  iii. 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?  iv. Impede or redirect flows?  d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?  e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?  DISCUSSION 10(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Water and sewer services are 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 one 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. 137 137 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 92 Construction Impacts Construction activities covered under the State’s General Construction Permit include demolition of buildings and hardscape (driveways, patios), removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity for the proposed project. Prior to commencement of construction of the proposed project, a discharger must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the General Permit. This is codified in the City’s Municipal Code as Section 19.20.190, General Permit for Stormwater Discharges From Industrial Activities. The SWRCB will then issue a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) that must be kept at the construction site along with the construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that must also be prepared. The SWPPP describes the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during all phases of construction in order to prevent pollutants from being released, either through wind (fugitive dust) or water (stormwater runoff). The General Permit requires all dischargers to comply with the following during construction activities, including site clearance and grading: • Develop and implement a SWPPP that would specify 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. The SWPPP and WDID must be available for review on site during construction. • Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. • Perform inspections of all BMPs. Operational Impacts In addition to the development and implementation of the SWPPP during construction activities, the applicant must also prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post- construction operational management of storm water runoff. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary WQMP, prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates, that identifies BMPs to minimize the amount of pollutants, such as eroded soils, entering the drainage system after construction. Runoff from driveways, internal drive aisles and parking areas, and other impermeable surfaces must be controlled through an on-site drainage system. This is codified in the City’s Municipal Code as Section 19.20.260, Water Quality Management Plans. 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. The latter would be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Fire Department, the identified CUPA for the County and cities within the County (see discussion in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Item 8a/b)). BMPs such as periodic parking lot sweeping can substantially reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-5 for the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, Erosion Control Plan and WQMP are identified below in the Mitigation Measures section. Implementation of these measures would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. 138 138 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 93 10(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. According to CVWD, approximately 35 percent of the City's water is currently provided from water supplies coming from the underlying Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins. CVWD complies with its prescriptive water rights as managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster and will not deplete the local groundwater resource. The proposed project does not include development of an on-site well and 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, Water Resources. These facilities are all located north of the project site in the washes associated with creeks including Cucamonga Creek, Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek. 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 according to the project’s Drainage Study. As noted in the General Plan Program EIR (Section 4.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs but will not be a significant impact. CVWD has plans to meet this increased need to the year 2035, according to CVWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) adopted in June 2016. The proposed project is the reuse of an existing developed site, that although it does contain some unpaved areas used for landscaping and residential yards, replacing existing buildings and impervious surfaces such as driveways and parking lots with new buildings and related drive aisles and parking lots does not constitute a significant impact on groundwater recharge. This is because the project site is located in an urban area where individual lots are not considered a part of the groundwater recharge program by the water agencies. Instead, these agencies rely on groundwater recharge in the facilities noted above. Therefore, impacts on groundwater supplies associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. 10(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner, which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the ate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii 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; or iv) Impede or redirect flows? Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff from the site because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on the site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. Under existing conditions, the project site is approximately 80 percent developed with impervious surfaces (e.g./ pavement, rooftops), and 20 percent pervious (e.g., landscape, bare ground). The project site is approximately 11.1 acres (483,779 square feet), and approximately 62,090 square feet will be landscaped. Therefore, under proposed conditions, approximately 97 percent of the project site would be covered by impervious surfaces. However, the project site has been designed to drain into underground infiltration basins to prevent flooding. 139 139 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 94 Although the project site is located adjacent and to the west of the Cucamonga Creek channel, that channel is a concrete lined channel, that would be separated from the project site by the proposed perimeter block wall. Therefore, no runoff from the project site would enter the channel. A Preliminary Drainage Report was prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K) that describes existing and proposed site conditions. Under existing conditions, the site is approximately 80 developed with impervious surfaces (pavement, rooftops) and 20 percent pervious (landscape, bare ground). The site is developed with nine free standing buildings, asphalt pavement, curb and gutter, and miscellaneous utilities. The project site generally flows from the northwest corner to the southeast corner. Existing offsite flows from a residential subdivision discharge onto the project site. The commingle overland flows exit the site onto 9th Street or infiltrate on the property. Existing flows are collected via existing curb inlets and ultimately flow into the Cucamonga Creek channel under controlled conditions. Under proposed conditions, stormwater generated by the proposed project will be a combination of sheet flow (captured by inlets) and pipe flow. The site plan shows that underground infiltration basins will be developed along the east side of the project site adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek channel. These basins will be connected to a proposed underground storm drain system that will convey flows from the basins to the existing 66” storm drain located in 9th Street. For the purposes of the Preliminary Drainage Report, the site was divided into seven Drainage Management Areas (DMA). Three of the DMAs are designed for the 100-year storm event with inlets, pipes, and unground infiltration/detention basins. Another three DMAs are designed for 100-year storm with inlets and pipes. The seventh DMA would consist of the landscaped area and is considered self- mitigating. This area was not accounted for in the drainage analysis because it was assumed that the pervious surface would percolate the stormwater. All DMAs have been designed to treat stormwater per water quality requirements through infiltration or flow-thru devices. This is described in the project’s Preliminary WQMP. Best Management Practices This project includes infiltration basins on-site to capture and infiltrate the water quality design capture volume, detain the 100-year volume in excess of existing conditions, and discharge flows below existing conditions. On site conditions will be controlled through a series of non-structural and structural BMPs. Examples of non-structural and structural BMPs that would be implemented at the project site include those identified in the Preliminary WQMP. These BMPs are subject to refinement depending on the type of future occupants of the buildings. Non-Structural BMPs • Education of Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants on Stormwater BMPs • No outdoor work areas, processing, storage or wash area proposed. • Irrigation shall be consistent with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance and CVWD’s Water Use Efficiency Ordinance and list of low-water using plants. Fertilizer and pesticide usage will be consistent with County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides. 140 140 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 95 • Future building occupants shall prepare and implement spill contingency plan if applicable. • No underground storage tanks are proposed at the project site. • Owner or occupant shall implement a litter debris control program that includes regularly scheduled site maintenance such as parking lot sweeping and routine landscape maintenance • Owner shall ensure tenants are familiar with onsite BMPs and the associated maintenance required and will check with City and County at least once a year to obtain new or updated education materials to provide to tenants. Employees shall be trained to clean up spills and participate in ongoing maintenance. The WQMP requires bi-annually employee training and training for new hires within 2 months. • Owner to ensure the loading docks are kept in a clean and orderly condition through a regular program of sweeping and litter control and immediate cleanup of spills and broken containers. Cleanup procedures should minimize or eliminate the use of water. If wash water is used, it must be disposed of in an approved manner and not discharged into the storm drain system. If there are no other alternatives, discharge of non-stormwater flow to the sanitary sewer may be considered only if allowed by CVWD through a permitted connection. • Catch basin and inlets shall be inspected monthly and vacuumed when sediment or trash becomes two inches deep and dispose of it properly. • All landscape maintenance contractors shall be required to sweep up all landscape cuttings, mowings and fertilizer materials off paved areas weekly and dispose of properly. Parking areas and driveways will be swept monthly by sweeping contractor. Structural BMPs • “No Dumping” stencils will be included on all proposed catch basins and inlets. Legibility of stencil will be maintained on a yearly basis. • Trash and wastes storage areas shall be paved with an impervious surface and developed so as not to allow any run-on from adjacent areas. Drainage shall be diverted from adjoining roofs and pavements. Trash and waste storage area shall be screened or walled to prevent offsite transport of trash and have solid roof or awning to prevent direct contact with rainfall. • Irrigation systems shall include reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines. Timers shall be used to avoid over watering and watering cycles and duration shall be adjusted seasonally by the landscape maintenance contractor. The landscaping areas shall be grouped with plants that have similar water requirements. Native or drought tolerant species shall also be used where appropriate to reduce excess irrigation runoff and propose surface filtration. • Where applicable, landscaped areas shall be depressed in order to increase retention of stormwater/ irrigation water promote infiltration. This includes around parking lots. 141 141 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 96 • All slopes shall be vegetated or properly mulched with non-organic mulch (gravel/rocks) and maintained to prevent erosion and transport of sediment. Energy dissipaters shall be installed at all inlets into the basin. Low Impact Development BMPs In addition to non-structural and structural BMPs Low Impact Development BMPs also apply to the proposed project. The intent of Low Impact Development (LID) is to mitigate the impacts of runoff and stormwater pollution as close to its source as possible. The proposed project includes the following LID BMPs: • The project will utilize onsite infiltration BMPs to collect runoff from impervious areas, which will maximize the site’s natural infiltration. • Existing drainage patterns and time of concentrations will be preserved to the maximum extent possible and the site will be graded to generally drain from the NW corner to the SE to match the existing drainage patterns. • The proposed project includes landscaped features to disconnect impervious areas and areas that are not paved will be planted with approved landscape per the landscape plans. • All runoff will be conveyed into the infiltration basins which are sized to infiltrate the water quality volume and detain the delta 100-year volume. Outlet pipes are provided to discharge flows below existing conditions. • Areas that will be used for landscaping will be staked off to minimize compaction during construction and heavy construction vehicles will be prohibited from unnecessary soil compaction within the infiltration BMPs. 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. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. With adherence to standard BMPs as listed above or as part of the site-specific WQMP, the impact is considered to be less than significant. 10(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. There are no oceans, lakes, or reservoirs near the project site; therefore, impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The project’s Preliminary Drainage Report (Appendix K) characterizes the project site as a moderately flat site based on the regional topography sloping from the northwest to the southeast. The project site is part of a larger drainage area tributary to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District Cucamonga Creek, which is located along the eastern edge of the project site. The Cucamonga Creek ultimately discharges into the Prado Dam. The project site and adjacent Cucamonga Creek channel are shown in Figure 11, FEMA Flood Zones. As shown of Figure 11, the easterly portion of the project site is located within the 500-year flood zone. 142 142 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 97 The project site is covered by Map Number 06071C8630J of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, community number 060671, is included in this FIRM. A portion of the project site is within a FEMA-mapped 500-year floodplain (Moderate Hazard Area): the 0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or within drainage areas of less than one square mile. The remainder of the project is within the Minimum Hazard Area - 500-year floodplain (Area Outside of 0.2 percent Annual Chance of Flood Hazard) , which is an area of minimal flooding. The effective FEMA map is dated February 18, 2015 (per Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Figure PS-5, Flood Hazard Zones). In addition, the City’s General Plan Public Health and Safety Element Figure PS-5 shows that the eastern portion of the project site is in a Moderate Flood Hazard Area (500-year flood plain) but that it is protected by a levee (the concrete walls of the flood channel). The proposed project includes the development of a perimeter wall around the property that would further protect the site from flooding associated with the Cucamonga Creek channel. Therefore, this impact, including the risk release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 10(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. See responses to Items 10(a) and 10(c). MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are required to control additional storm water effluent: HWQ-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a SWPPP specifically identifying BMPs that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. HWQ-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. HWQ-3 An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, and included with the project’s 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. The 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. 143 143 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 98 HWQ-4 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, non-structural and Low Impact Development BMPs consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements. HWQ-5 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. IMPACT CONCLUSION Compliance with all requirements as set forth in Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-5 will ensure that the construction and operation of the proposed project would not adversely impact the water quality, result in flooding, or reduce water quality in the area. 144 144 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20.025 Miles Figure 11 FEMA 100 Year Flood Zones Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Imagery Date: 8/6/2017 1 inch = 270 feetO Date: 10/14/2019 Legend Project Boundary FEMA 100-Year Flood Zones FEMA 500-Year Flood Zones 145145 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 100 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?  b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?  DISCUSSION 11(a) Physically divide an established community? Determination: No Impact. The project site is located on 9th Street west of Vineyard Avenue in an area designated for General Industrial uses. The site is currently developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. The buildings will be demolished and replaced with a new warehouse development consisting of three buildings for a total of approximately 227,912 square feet. The area is characterized by residential development to the north and west and by industrial development and vacant land (designated General Industrial) to the south. East of the project site is the Cucamonga Creek channel, and more industrial uses exist east of Vineyard Avenue. Table 16, Surrounding Properties, Existing Land Uses and Land Use Designations, shows existing conditions in the project area. Because the project site is currently developed with a mix of land uses only accessible from 9th Street, and is not a vacant site, redeveloping the site with three new warehouse buildings and related drive aisles, parking lots and landscaping would not physically divide an existing community. Therefore, there is no impact on Land Use and Planning associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an existing community. 146 146 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 101 Table 16 Surrounding Properties, Existing Land Uses and Land Use Designations Direction Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation North Residential properties Medium Density Res (8-14 du/ac) Northeast Cucamonga Creek followed by retail center with five retail buildings (8560 Vineyard Ave) General Industrial (0.5 to 0.6 FAR) East Cucamonga Creek followed by Vineyard West Mini Storage (8646 Vineyard Ave) General Industrial (0.5 to 0.6 FAR) Southeast East 9th Street and water canal followed by Kiro Cars and Rancho Smog Center (8730 Vineyard Ave) General Industrial (0.5 to 0.6 FAR) South Along East 9th St: Merchant’s Landscaping, Astor Broadcast Corp and vacant land General Industrial (0.5 to 0.6 FAR) West Multifamily buildings Medium Density Residential (8-14 du/ac) Northwest Willow Apartments (8701 Arrow Route) Medium Density Res (8-14 du/ac) Source: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use Map and Site Visit, March 24, 2019. 11(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Determination: No Impact. The project site is located in a General Industrial District and has a general plan designation of General Industrial. Figure 5 shows the site layout with buildings, parking lot, loading docks, ingress/egress, etc. The proposed development of three industrial warehouse buildings ranging in size from 50,771 square feet to 95,188 square feet. These are further defined as follows: Building A (Rear Building) The applicant is proposing a 50,771 square foot industrial warehouse building that includes a 2,500 square foot office at southeast building corner; and a 1,000 square foot mezzanine over the office. Figure 6a shows the proposed building elevations from all directions. The proposed building would meet the development standards as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.36.040 as shown in Table 17, except for the following: • A request for approval of a minor variance to the City Zoning Code regarding the required 45-foot setback from adjacent properties. Building A would be set back 40 feet from the site’s rear property line to the north (the back side of building A). Under existing conditions, the closest structure to the north is approximately 150 feet from the property line. The applicant has proposed the north side of the building to be made of concrete panels of varying related colors, and a concrete screen wall with landscaping, to break up the solid mass. Additionally, there is no parking and no dock doors proposed for this back wall. 147 147 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 102 Building B (Middle Building) The applicant is proposing an 81,953 square foot industrial warehouse building that includes two, 2,500 square foot offices at the southeast and southwest corners of the building, both with 1,000 square foot mezzanines over the offices. Figure 6b shows the proposed elevations from all directions. Table 17 Development Standards for General Industrial (GI) Uses Description Standard Consistent Lot area (minimum) 0.5 ac yes Lot width (minimum) 100 ft yes Setback (minimum distance between structure and property line in ft Front yard1 25 ft yes Side yard2 45 ft when adjacent to residential yes Street side yard (and rear yard abutting street)3 -- No street side yards Rear yard2 45 ft when adjacent to residential Minor variance request for Building A for 40 ft setback Distance Between Buildings Primary buildings Must meet current building code requirements Yes Accessory buildings -- No accessory buildings proposed Building Height (maximum in feet) Primary buildings 35 ft at the front setback3 Maximum height is 75 feet3 yes Accessory buildings 18 ft No accessory buildings proposed Floor Area Ratio (maximum ratio of building to lot square footage) Floor area ratio 50—60 percent (0.5 – 0.6) yes Open Space Requirement (minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project) Open space/landscape area 10% yes Performance standards per Chapter 17.66)4 B yes Source: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.36.040 Development standards for industrial districts. Notes (modified to focus only on relationship to the project site): 1.. From Municipal Code Table 17.36.040-2, Streetscape Setback Requirements, where building setback from a Local/Collector Street is 25 feet; average depth of landscaping is 25 feet; and parking setback is 15 feet. 2. Setback shall be increased to 45 feet when abutting a residential property line. 3. Buildings exceeding 35 feet high shall be set back an additional one foot from the front setback for each one foot of height up to a maximum setback of 70 feet. Heights over 75 feet may be permitted with a conditional use permit. 4. Class B performance standards apply to the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District; and include standards identified in Project Description, Table 2, Class B Performance Standards for the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District. The proposed building would meet the development standards as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.36.040 (see Table 17). Building C (Front Building Adjacent to 9th Street) 148 148 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 103 The applicant is proposing a 100,554 square foot industrial warehouse building that includes two, 2,500 square foot offices at the southeast and southwest corners of the building, both with 1,000 square foot mezzanines over the offices. Figure 6c shows the proposed elevations from all directions. The proposed building would meet the development standards as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.36.040 (see Table 17. The requirement for Building C (abutting 9th Street) is a maximum height of 35 feet, with an additional one-foot setback for each additional one foot in height. Therefore, the maximum building height of 42 feet, six inches shown in Figure 6c, meets the intent of the code by setting the building back XX feet from the street. Overall, the site has been designed to encourage trucks to use the east drive isle by providing a wider isle ranging from 30’ to 47’ vs 26’ on the west side. Additionally, in an effort to mitigate noise, all buildings have been designed with dock doors facing south and east. Per the Minor Variance request, the nearest residence from the site’s northerly property line is approximately 150 feet from the property line. The applicant has proposed the north side of Building A to be made of concrete panels of varying related colors, and a concrete screen wall with landscaping, to break up the solid mass. Additionally, there is no parking and no dock doors proposed for this back wall. Therefore, with architectural treatment, and limited noise generating activities the reduction in the width of the rear yard setback from 45 feet to 40 feet would be less than significant. Southwest Rancho Cucamonga Focus Area and Industrial Area Specific Plan The project site is located in the Southwest Rancho Cucamonga Focus Area and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Both plan areas are represented in the General Plan on Figure LU-4, Focus Areas, and Figure-5, Adopted Specific Plans and Planned Communities. Southwest Focus Area The City’s Southwest Focus Area is bounded on the south by the City of Ontario and on the west by the City of Upland. The area is divided north from the south by a Metrolink rail line that runs adjacent to 8th Street. The General Plan describes the uses in the focus area are primarily light industrial and warehousing, but that there are residential neighborhoods to the southwest and the northeast. The City’s vision for this area includes: • Allowing for the development of commercial and community services needed by the adjacent residential neighborhoods. This goal would not apply to the proposed project because the project does not include commercial uses or community services. However, the reuse of the underutilized site from a mix of older residential and wholesale/commercial uses (now vacant) to light industrial/warehouse uses does not preclude other properties from being developed with such commercial uses or community services. • Implementing community design improvements and reducing truck traffic impacts on the residential neighborhoods. The proposed project includes new truck traffic, however, the applicant’s intent is that ingress and egress from the site will be limited to travel on 9th Street via Vineyard Avenue and not westbound toward residential neighborhoods. Design improvements at the site include the removal of existing trees, shrubs and grasses that have deteriorated over 149 149 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 104 time due to lack of maintenance, and replacement with new landscaping and fencing that will be maintained in accordance with the City’s development code requirements. • Encouraging the re-use and rehabilitation of historic or high-quality buildings to the greatest extent possible. Although the project site does not include historic or high quality buildings, the applicant will be taking an underutilized site that has fallen into disrepair and is currently vacant, with three new industrial/warehouse buildings designed with tilt-up concrete panels of varying but related tan-brown tones, and vista cool glazed windows. The front of Building C, closest to 9th Street will be treated with a screen wall (with corner pilasters) and a row of landscape screening (combination of trees, shrubs and ground cover). Industrial Area Specific Plan The Industrial Area Specific Plan was adopted in 1981 and encompasses a 5,000-acre area in the southern portion of the City, generally south of Foothill Boulevard. The purpose of the Specific Plan was to establish specific standards and guidelines to be used for development throughout the City’s industrial area. Per the General Plan, Land Use Element (page LU-49), the Specific Plans and Planned Communities identified in Figure LU-5 were approved by the City and in 1999, the Development Code was amended to incorporate the Industrial Area Specific Plan, as well as the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Therefore, development standards for the project site are found in the City’s Development Code for General Industrial (GI) land uses. The project’s consistency with the Development Code is discussed above. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) The project would also be consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS goals are meant to provide guidance for considering a proposed project within the context of regional goals and policies. As shown in Table 18, Project Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS, implementation of the project implementation would be consistent with the adopted RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 150 150 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 105 Table 18 Project Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS Goal Goal Statement Project’s Consistency with Goals G1 Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness. No inconsistency identified. The policy is implemented by cities and the counties within the SCAG region as part of comprehensive local and regional planning efforts. G2 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. No inconsistency identified. The proposed project would not generate peak hour trips in excess of 50 trips, the established threshold. G3 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. No inconsistency identified. The proposed project does not include elements that would result in a substantial safety hazard to motorists. G4 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. No inconsistency identified. The policy is implemented by cities and the counties within the SCAG region as part of the overall planning and maintenance of the regional transportation system. The project would have no adverse effect on this planning effort. G5 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. No inconsistency identified. The policy is implemented by cities and the counties within the SCAG region as part of comprehensive transportation planning efforts. The project will be consistent with the City’s Transportation Element that meets this goal. G6 Protect the environment and health for our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation/non-motorized transportation. No inconsistency identified. See other sections of the Initial Study including Air Quality, Greenhouse Gasses, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Noise, etc., and discussions of the project’s less than significant impact on the environment. G7 Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible. No inconsistency identified. See other sections of the Initial Study including Aesthetics and Air Quality for a discussion of the project’s compliance with applicable standard conditions and requirements. 151 151 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 106 Table 18 Project Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (continued) Goal Goal Statement Project’s Consistency with Goals G8 Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non- motorized transportation. No inconsistency identified. The policy provides guidance to the City to establish a local land use plan that facilitates the use of transit and non-motorized forms of transportation. The project site and other sites in the General Industrial District are planned for similar land uses. The proposed project is a logical extension of the City’s planned growth of light industrial uses in the area. Therefore, the project is not considered to be inconsistent with the RTP/SCS. G9 Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. No inconsistency identified. The policy provides guidance to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to monitor the transportation network and to coordinate with other agencies as appropriate. Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx MITIGATION MEASURES No impacts have been identified for regarding Land Use and Planning, therefore no mitigation measures are required. IMPACT CONCLUSION No impacts have been identified for regarding Land Use and Planning. In addition, the project was found to be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS as outlined in Table 18. 152 152 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 107 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. 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?  DISCUSSION 12(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? and 12(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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Geological Survey (CGS), a large portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site and vicinity is located in a Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2). This zone contains areas where geologic data indicate that significant Portland Cement Concrete PCC) grade aggregate resources are present. This is due to the City’s location on a series of alluvial fans where aggregate material of varying grades is located. CGS further defines the area as being in the Claremont- Upland Production Consumption Region and has identified sectors where known resources are being mined or are available to mine. These sectors are generally located along the San Antonio Creek Wash in the cities of Claremont and Upland, along the Upper Cucamonga Fan in the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, and in the Deer Creek, Day Creek and Lytle Creek fan areas in Rancho Cucamonga. With the exception of the Holliday Foothill Plant site, these areas are all north of the 210 freeway, well north of the project site, and the Lytle Creek fan site is located well east of the project site in the cities of Rialto and San Bernardino. The General Plan Resource Conservation Element Figure RC-2, Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources, identifies these locations. Therefore, there would be no impact to on mineral resources associated with the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. IMPACT CONCLUSION A less than significant impact has been identified for mineral resources. 153 153 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 108 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13. NOISE: Would the project: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?  b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?  c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 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?  DISCUSSION 13(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Noise Descriptors Noise has been simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Table 19, Typical Noise Levels Exhibit, provides a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below. Ambient sounds in the urban environment generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). 154 154 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 109 Table 19 Typical Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activity Common Indoor Activity A-weighted Sound Level (dBA) Subjective Level Effects of Noise Threshold of Pain 140 Intolerable or deafening Hearing Loss Near Jet Engine 130 120 Jet Fly-over at 1,000 ft) Rock Band 110 Loud Auto Horn 100 Very Noisy Gas Lawn Lower at 3 ft 90 Diesel truck at 50 ft/50 mph Food blender at 3 ft 80 Speech Interference Noisy Urban area Daytime Vacuum cleaner at 10 ft 70 Loud Heavy traffic at 300 ft Normal speech at 3 ft 60 Quiet urban daytime Large business office 50 Moderate Quiet urban nighttime Theater, large conference room (background) 40 Sleep Disturbance Quiet Suburban nighttime Library 30 Faint No Effect Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 20 10 Very faint Lowest threshold of human hearing Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Exhibit 2A. For planning purposes, because people are generally more sensitive to noise intrusions during the evening and night hours, State law requires use of such metrics as the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). These metrics add an artificial decibel increment to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor to account for increased sensitivity during late hours. The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 10 dBA for the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. period. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology, except that no artificial increment is added to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Both descriptors yield roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (that is, higher). Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment. Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise 155 155 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 110 from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. State Green Building Standards Code The State’s 2016 Green Building Standards Code contains mandatory measures for non-residential building construction in Section 5.507 on Environmental Comfort. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when non-residential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within a noise contour of an airport, freeway, railroad, or other areas where noise contours are not readily available. If the development falls within an airport or freeway 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, the combined sound transmission class (STC) rating of the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies must be at least 50. For those developments in areas where noise contours are not readily available and the noise level exceeds 65 dBA Leq for any hour of operation, a wall and roof-ceiling combined STC rating of 45, and exterior windows with a minimum STC rating of 40 are required (Section 5.507.4.1). City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Health and Safety Element The General Plan Public Health and Safety Element identifies noise-sensitive land uses and establishes compatibility guidelines for land use and noise. In addition, the element identifies goals and policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community. The noise-related Public Health and Safety Element goals are as follows: PS-13: Minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community and adopt appropriate noise level requirements for all land uses. PS-14: Minimize the impacts of transportation-related noise. The noise criteria identified in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Health and Safety Element (Figure PS-8) are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation-related noise. City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Construction City of Rancho Cucamonga has established limits to the hours of operation and noise levels for construction activities. Section 17.66.050(D)(4)(a) of the Development Code identifies the activities that are exempt from the provisions of the noise standards: Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: a. When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday, and provided that noise levels created do not exceed the base noise level standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. 156 156 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 111 b. When adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the standards of 70 dBA at the adjacent property line. As shown in Figure 12, Noise Receiver Locations, the project site is adjacent to residential and non- residential land uses. If the project demonstrates compliance with the standards for both types of uses, the construction noise level impacts are considered exempt from the noise standards. The Development Code Noise Standards for construction activities are shown on Table 20, Noise Standards for Construction Projects. Table 20 Noise Standards for Construction Projects Adjacent Land Use Hours of Construction Activity Construction Noise Level Standard (dBA Leq)1 Residential, School and Church 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday; no activity on Sundays or national holidays 65 Commercial and Industrial 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday to Sunday 70 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050(D)(4) Special Exclusions. Notes 1. Noise level standard when measured at the adjacent property line per Section 17.66.050(D)(4) Operations The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Chapter 17.66 Performance Standards, Section 17.66.050 Noise Standards, contains the exterior noise level limits for residential (Noise Zone 1) and commercial (Noise Zone 2) land uses, as shown on Table 21, Operational Noise Standards. The table identifies a daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) base noise level standard of 65 dBA Leq, and a nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) base noise level standard of 60 dBA Leq for residential land uses. 157 157 Figure 12 Noise Receiver Locations Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Urban CrossroadsO Date: 10/4/2019 158158 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 113 Table 21 Operational Noise Standards Land Use Time Period1 Exterior Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)2 Residential (Noise Zone 1) Daytime 65 Nighttime 60 Commercial (Noise Zone 2) Daytime 70 Nighttime 65 Industrial Anytime 70 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Table 17.66.050 (G) and Table 17.66.110-1. Notes 1. Daytime = 7 am to 10 pm, Nighttime = 10 pm to 7 am. 2. Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Noise Sensitive Receptors The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq). The Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the project referred to these recommendations. For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (less than 60 dBA) and a new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded. Per FICON, in areas where ambient noise levels without the project range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the ambient noise levels without the project already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. Significance Criteria Used to Evaluate Project Noise Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 22, Significance Criteria Summary, shows the conditions under which an impact is considered to be significant. 159 159 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 114 Table 22 Significance of Noise Impacts at Noise Sensitive Receptors Without Project Noise Levels Potential Significant Impact < 60 dBA 5 dBA or more 60 - 65 dBA 3 dBA or more > 65 dBA 1.5 dBA or more Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 4-1. Construction Noise and Vibration • If project-related construction activities: O create noise levels which exceed the 65 dBA Leq noise level threshold at the nearby sensitive receiver locations; or O create noise levels which exceed the 70 dBA Leq noise level threshold at the nearby commercial and/or industrial uses (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66). • If short-term project construction vibration levels exceed the Caltrans building damage vibration thresholds of 0.3 in/sec PPV at residential homes, or the human annoyance threshold of 0.04 in/sec PPV at sensitive receiver locations (Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual). Figure 13, Typical Levels of Ground-borne Vibration, shows the human response to typical sources of ground-borne vibration. Operational Noise and Vibration • If Project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed: o the 65 dBA Leq daytime or 60 dBA Leq nighttime residential exterior noise level standards at nearby residential receiver locations; or o the 70 dBA Leq daytime or 65 dBA Leq nighttime commercial exterior noise level standards at nearby commercial receiver locations; or o the 70 dBA Leq industrial exterior noise level standards at adjacent industrial uses (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66). • If the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby noise-sensitive receivers (e.g., residential) near the Project site: o are less than 60 dBA Leq and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA Leq or greater project-related noise level increase; or 160 160 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 115 Figure 13 Typical Levels of Ground-borne Vibration 161 161 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 116 o range from 60 to 65 dBA Leq and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA Leq or greater Project-related noise level increase; or o already exceed 65 dBA Leq, and the project creates a community noise level impact of greater than 1.5 dBA Leq (FICON, 1992). • If long-term Project construction vibration levels exceed the Caltrans building damage vibration thresholds of 0.3 in/sec PPV at residential homes, or the human annoyance threshold of 0.04 in/sec PPV at sensitive receiver locations (Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual). Table 23, Significance Criteria Summary, lists the various criteria identified above. Table 23 Significance Criteria Summary Analysis Land Use Conditions Significance Criteria Daytime Nighttime Operational Noise and Vibration Residential Exterior Noise Level Standards 65 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq Commercial 70 dBA Leq 65 dBA Leq Industrial 70 dBA Leq Noise Sensitive If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq > 5 dBA Leq project increase If ambient is < 60 to 65 dBA Leq > 3 dBA Leq project increase If ambient is < 65 dBA Leq > 1.5 dBA Leq project increase Building Damage Vibration Level Threshold 0.3 in/sec PPV Annoyance Vibration Level Threshold 0.3 in/sec PPV Construction Noise and Vibration Residential Exterior Noise Level Threshold 65 dBA Leq n/a Non-residential 70 dBA Leq n/a Noise Sensitive Building Damage Vibration Level Threshold 0.3 in/sec PPV n/a Annoyance Vibration Level Threshold 0.04 in/sec PPV n/a Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 4-2. Existing Noise Leve Measurements To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at six locations around the perimeter of the project site where sensitive receptors are adjacent or near the project site. Results are shown in Table 24, 24-hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements. The noise measurements presented in the table focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq). Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 24 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. 162 162 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 117 Table 24 24-hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Location Description Energy Average Noise Level (dBA Leq) Daytime Nighttime L1 Located north of the Project site near existing residential homes on the north side of Arrow Route. 67.8 62.2 L2 Located east of the Project site, west of Vineyard Avenue near existing commercial and office uses. 52.5 51.2 L3 Located south of the Project site near existing commercial uses on the south side of 9th Street. 67.9 62.3 L4 Located west of the Project site on the north side of 9th Street near existing residential homes. 59.6 53.9 L5 Located adjacent to the northwestern portion of the Project site within an existing residential community south of Arrow Rt. 51.2 49.1 L6 Located adjacent to the northwestern corner of the Project site boundaries in an existing residential community south of Arrow Route. 50.4 49.4 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 5-1. Figure 14, Noise Measurement Locations, shows locations where sensitive land uses occur adjacent to the project site. • Location L1 represents the noise levels north of the project site near existing residential homes on the north side of Arrow Route. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 67.8 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 62.2 dBA Leq. • Location L2 represents the noise levels east of the project site, west of Vineyard Avenue near existing commercial and office uses. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 52.5 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 51.2 dBA Leq. • Location L3 represents the noise levels south of the project site near existing commercial uses on the south side of 9th Street. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 67.9 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 62.3 dBA Leq. • Location L4 represents the noise levels west of the project site on the north side of 9th Street near existing residential homes. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 59.6 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 53.9 dBA Leq. • Location L5 represents the noise levels adjacent to the northwestern portion of the project site within an existing residential community south of Arrow Route. The energy (logarithmic) average 163 163 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 118 daytime noise level was calculated at 51.2 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 49.1 dBA Leq. • Location L6 represents the noise levels adjacent to the northwestern corner of the project site boundaries in an existing residential community south of Arrow Route. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 50.4 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 49.4 dBA Leq. Construction Noise Assessment Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: • Demolition • Site Preparation • Grading • Building Construction • Paving • Architectural Coating The construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc., to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of construction. The construction reference noise level measurements represent a list of typical construction activity noise levels. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to more than 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet from the source. However, these noise levels diminish with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 80 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receiver would be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receiver, and would be further reduced to 68 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver. To describe the project construction noise levels, measurements were collected for similar activities at several construction sites. Table 25, Construction Reference Noise Levels, provides a summary of the construction reference noise level measurements. Since the reference noise levels were collected at varying distances of 30 feet and 50 feet, all construction noise level measurements presented on Table 25 have been adjusted for consistency to describe a uniform reference distance of 50 feet. 164 164 Figure 14 Noise Measurement Locations Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Phelan DevelopmentO Date: 10/4/2019 165165 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 120 Table 25 Construction Reference Noise Levels ID Noise Source Duration (h:mm:ss) Reference Distance From Source (Feet) Reference Noise Levels @ Reference Distance (dBA Leq) Reference Noise Levels @ 50 Feet (dBA Leq)6 1 Truck Pass-Bys and Dozer Activity1 0:01:15 30' 63.6 59.2 2 Dozer Activity1 0:01:00 30' 68.6 64.2 3 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities2 0:01:00 30' 71.9 67.5 4 Foundation Trenching2 0:01:01 30' 72.6 68.2 5 Rough Grading Activities2 0:05:00 30' 77.9 73.5 6 Framing3 0:02:00 30' 66.7 62.3 8 Concrete Mixer Truck Movements4 0:01:00 50' 71.2 71.2 9 Concrete Paver Activities4 0:01:00 30' 70.0 65.6 10 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities4 0:01:00 30' 70.3 65.9 11 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes4 0:00:20 50' 71.6 71.6 12 Concrete Mixer Pour Activities4 1:00:00 50' 67.7 67.7 13 Forklift, Jackhammer, & Metal Truck Bed Loading5 0:02:06 50' 67.9 67.9 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 8-8. Notes: 1. As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/14/15 at a business park construction site located at the northwest corner of Barranca Parkway and Alton Parkway in the City of Irvine. 2. As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/20/15 at a construction site located in Rancho Mission Viejo. 3. As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/20/15 at a residential construction site located in Rancho Mission Viejo. 4. Reference noise level measurements were collected from a nighttime concrete pour at an industrial construction site, located at 27334 San Bernardino Avenue in the City of Redlands, between 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on 7/1/15. 5. As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 9/9/16 during the demolition of an existing paved parking lot in Irvine. 6. Reference noise levels are calculated at 50 feet using a drop off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (point source). Construction Noise Analysis Using the reference construction equipment noise levels, calculations of the project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Table 26, Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary (dBA Leq), summarizes the short-term construction noise levels for each stage of construction at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. 166 166 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 121 Table 26 Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary (dBA Leq) Receiver Location1 Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Demolition Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Levels2 R1 71.0 67.3 76.6 71.3 74.7 70.6 76.6 R2 56.7 52.9 62.2 56.9 60.4 56.2 62.2 R3 61.1 57.3 66.6 61.3 64.8 60.6 66.6 R4 65.3 61.5 70.8 65.5 69.0 64.8 70.8 R5 67.3 63.6 72.9 67.6 71.0 66.9 72.9 R6 55.6 51.9 61.2 55.9 59.3 55.2 61.2 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 8-8. Notes: 1. Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 12. 2. Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions. Based on the stages of construction, the noise impacts associated with project construction are expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations. To assess the worst- case construction noise levels, this analysis shows the highest noise impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity to each receiver location. Table 27, Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance, shows that project-related short-term construction noise levels are expected to range from 51.9 to 76.6 dBA Leq and will exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga 65 dBA Leq exterior noise level standard at sensitive receiver locations R1, R4, and R5; thereby representing a potentially significant noise impact. Table 27 Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance Receiver Location1 Land Use Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Highest Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4 R1 RES 76.6 65 Yes R2 COM 62.2 70 No R3 COM 66.6 70 No R4 RES 70.8 65 Yes R5 RES 72.9 65 Yes R6 RES 61.2 65 No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 8-8. Notes: 1. Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 12. 2. Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions as shown in Table 25. 3. Construction noise level threshold as shown on Table 23. 4. Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? 167 167 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 122 The results of the noise study indicate that a 100-foot buffer zone mitigation measure is required which would restrict the use of large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds) within 100-feet of occupied sensitive receiver locations represented by R1, R4, and R5. In addition, the construction of the 8-foot high operational noise barrier mitigation would be needed prior to the start of project construction to reduce noise levels. Figure 15, Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation, shows the buffer zone. If it is not feasible to construct this barrier prior to project construction, then equivalent, temporary construction noise barriers shall be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3, located at the end of this section, would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receiver locations to less than significant levels for construction as shown in Table 28, Mitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance. Table 28 Mitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance Receiver Location Land Use Highest Unmitigated Levels Heavy Equip. Buffer Attenuation Required Noise Barrier Attenuation Resulting Mitigation Measures Threshold Threshold Exceeded? R1 RES 76.6 -9.1 -6.2 61.2 76.6 No R2 COM 62.2 0.0 0.0 62.2 62.2 No R3 COM 66.6 0.0 0.0 66.6 66.6 No R4 RES 70.8 0.0 0.0 62.4 70.8 No R5 RES 72.9 -10.5 0.0 62.4 72.9 No R6 RES 61.2 0.0 0.0 61.2 61.2 No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 8-10. Notes: 1. Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 12. 2. Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions as shown in Table 27. 3. Construction noise level threshold as shown on Table 23. 4. Do the estimated project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? Operations Noise Assessment The potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations (see Figure 12) that could result from operation of the proposed project are evaluated herein. The on-site project- related noise sources are expected to include: • idling trucks • delivery truck activities • backup alarms • loading and unloading of dry goods • roof-top air conditioning units • parking lot vehicle movements Reference Noise Levels To estimate the project’s operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the 168 168 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 123 Reference Noise Levels To estimate the project’s operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed project. These noise levels are shown in Table 29, Reference Noise Level Measurements. It is important to note that the evaluation of the proposed project’s projected noise levels assumed the worst case noise environment of all operation activities listed above all operating simultaneously. However, these noise level impacts will likely vary throughout the day. Table 29 Reference Noise Level Measurements Noise Source Duration (hh:mm:ss Reference Distance (feet) Noise Source (Height) Hourly Activity (minutes) Reverence Noise Level (dBA Leq) @ Ref Distance @ 50 Feet Truck Unloading/Docking Activity1 00:15:00 30' 8' 60 67.2 62.8 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units2 96:00:00 5' 5' 39 77.2 57.2 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements3 01:00:00 10' 2.5' 60 52.2 38.2 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 7-1. Notes: 1. Reference noise level measurements were collected from the existing operations of the Motivational Fulfillment & Logistics Services distribution facility located at 6810 Bickmore Avenue in the City of Chino on Wednesday, January 7, 2015. 2. As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 7/27/2015 at the Santee Walmart located at 170 Town Center Parkway. 3. As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 5/17/2017 at the Panasonic Avionics Corporation parking lot in the City of Lake Forest. 4. Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site based on the reference noise level measurement activity. The project site is bounded on the south by 9th Street with vacant land and some non-residential buildings on the south side of the street. To the east, the site is bounded by the Cucamonga Creek channel and warehouse type buildings east of the channel between Arrow Route and 9th Street. There are no sensitive noise receptors located adjacent along the east and south site boundaries (Noise Receptors R2 and R3). To the north and west are residential uses represented by Noise Receptors R1, and R 4 through R6 (see Figure 12). Noise Receptor R1 would be less affected by the proposed project because the nearest habitable structure is approximately 150 feet north of the north property line. Likewise, Noise Receptor R6 is approximately 116 feet from the west property line. However, R4 and R5 are located approximately 30 feet and 38 feet from the west property line. 169 169 Figure 15 Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Phelan DevelopmentO Date: 10/4/2019 170170 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 125 Truck Idling, Deliveries, Back up Alarms, Loading Dock Activities Short-term reference noise level measurements shown in Table 29 for these activities represent the typical weekday dry goods logistics warehouse operation in a single building, of roughly 285,000 square feet, with a loading dock area on the western side of the building façade. Up to ten trucks were observed in the loading dock area including a combination of tractor trailer semi-trucks, two-axle delivery trucks, and background forklift operations. The unloading/docking activity noise level measurement was taken over a fifteen-minute period and represents multiple noise sources taken from the center of loading dock activities generating a reference noise level of 62.8 dBA Leq at a uniform reference distance of 50 feet. At this measurement location, the noise sources associated with employees unloading a docked truck container included the squeaking of the truck’s shocks when weight was removed from the truck, employees playing music over a radio, as well as a forklift horn and backup alarm. In addition, during the noise level measurement a truck entered the loading dock area and proceeded to reverse and dock in a nearby loading bay, adding truck engine and air brakes noise. The proposed project’s loading docks will be constructed to allow trailers to seal to the docks, thereby directing the unloading noise into the warehouse. The primary noise generated by unloading/docking activities is the noise of the truck arriving, backing into the dock area, detaching the cab, attaching the cab to the empty trailer, and exiting the loading dock. Because the trailer seals to the loading dock, employees unload the tractor trailer from the inside of the warehouse. A noise source height of 8 feet was used as it reasonably accounts for the combination of noise source activities from loading dock activities. For Receiver Location R6, the noise impacts associated with the unloading/docking activity is effectively blocked by Building A estimated to be 30 feet high. There is no direct line of sight between R6 and the unloading/docking area for this building; and the loading docks for buildings B and C also have their loading docks on the south sides of the buildings so there is no line of sight between R6 and the loading docks. Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units To assess the impacts created by the roof-top air conditioning units on- site, reference noise levels measurements were taken over a four-day total duration for mechanical roof-top air conditioning units on the roof of an existing Walmart store, in addition to background noise levels from additional roof-top units. The reference noise level represents Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning units. At 5 feet from the closest roof-top air conditioning unit, the highest exterior noise level from all four days of the measurement period was measured at 77.2 dBA Leq. Using the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the noise level is 57.2 dBA Leq. The operating conditions of the reference noise level measurement reflect peak summer cooling requirements with measured temperatures approaching 96 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with average daytime temperatures of 82°F. The roof-top air condition units were observed to operate the most during the daytime hours for a total of 39 minutes per hour. The noise attenuation provided by the planned 5-foot high parapet wall is not reflected in this reference noise level measurement. For the proposed project, the noise source height of 5 feet was used to describe the height above the noise source elevation. The roof-top air conditioning units are placed at a noise source elevation of 30 feet (top of roof). This effectively places the roof-top air conditioning units at a noise source height of 35 feet (noise source elevation + noise source height). 171 171 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 126 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements (Passenger Vehicles) To determine the noise levels associated with parking lot vehicle movements, the peak hour of activity measured over the 24-hour noise level measurement period occurred between 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., or the typical lunch hour for employees working in the area was collected from a warehouse site in the City of Lake Forest. The measured reference noise level at 50 feet from parking lot vehicle movements was measured at 38.2 dBA Leq. The parking lot noise levels are mainly due to cars pulling in and out of spaces during peak lunch hour activity and employees talking. Noise associated with parking lot vehicle movements is expected to operate for the entire hour (60 minutes). The parking lot noise levels associated with the proposed project would be mainly due to cars pulling in and out of spaces, car alarms sounding, and individuals/drivers within the parking lot. The parking lot noise source height is not limited to engine noise from autos. A noise source height of 5 feet is considered conservative since any noise mitigation measures would need to account for the higher noise source height. In response to this comment, the parking lot vehicle movement noise source height of 5 feet has been changed to 2.5 feet. Project Operational Noise Levels Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include idling trucks, delivery truck activities, backup alarms, as well as loading and unloading of dry goods, roof-top air conditioning units, and parking lot vehicle movements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. The operational noise level calculations, shown on Table 30, Unmitigated Project Only Operational Noise Levels, account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. Hard site conditions are used in the operational noise analysis which result in noise levels that attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a point source. The basic noise attenuation equation shown below is used to calculate the distance attenuation based on a reference noise level (SPL1): SPL2 = SPL1 - 20log(D2/D1) Where SPL2 is the resulting noise level after attenuation, SPL1 is the source noise level, D2 is the distance to the reference sound pressure level (SPL1), and D1 is the distance to the receiver location. Table 30 shows the individual operational noise levels of each noise source at each of the nearby sensitive receiver locations. As indicated on Table 30, the project-only operational noise levels will range from 39.2 to 61.9 dBA Leq at the sensitive receiver locations. The unmitigated operational noise levels include the noise attenuation provided by the planned 5-foot high parapet walls used to screen the roof- top air conditioning units. 172 172 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 127 Table 30 Unmitigated Project-Only Operational Noise Levels Receiver Location Noise Levels by Noise Source (dBA Leq) Combined Operational Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Truck Unloading/ Docking Activity Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units Parking Lot Vehicle Movements R1 61.8 32.0 45.0 61.9 R2 50.5 35.5 33.5 50.7 R3 43.9 37.5 21.5 44.8 R4 44.7 41.6 37.0 46.9 R5 45.0 41.6 38.7 47.3 R6 28.6 38.5 26.8 39.2 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 7-2. Notes: 1. See Exhibit 12 for the receiver and noise source locations. 2. Reference noise sources as shown on Table 29. Individual noise source calculations are provided in Appendix 7.1 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Initial Study Appendix L). Table 31, Unmitigated Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows that operational noise levels associated with project will exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga exterior noise level standards at receiver location R1 during the nighttime hours. Therefore, project-related operational noise level impacts are considered potentially significant impact at adjacent existing residential uses during the more sensitive nighttime hours. All other receiver locations will experience less than significant unmitigated noise impacts. Table 31 Unmitigated Operational Noise Level Compliance Receiver Location1 Land Use Noise Level at Receiver Locations (dBA Leq)2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4 Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime R1 RES 61.9 65 60 No Yes R2 COM 50.7 70 65 No No R3 COM 44.8 70 65 No No R4 RES 46.9 65 60 No No R5 RES 47.3 65 60 No No R6 RES 39.2 65 60 No No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 7-3. Notes: 1. See Figure 12 for the receiver and noise source locations. 2. Estimated Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 30. 3. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 4. Do the estimated Project operational noise levels meet the operational noise level standards? To reduce the potentially significant operational noise level impacts at the nearby receiver locations, the construction of a minimum 8-foot high noise barrier along the northern project site boundary is required, as shown in Figure 16, Operational Noise Mitigation, following the summary of mitigation 173 173 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 128 measures below. With the noise barrier shown in Figure 16, the project’s operational noise levels approach 55.6 dBA Leq at receiver location R1, as shown on Table 32, Mitigated Project Only Operational Noise Levels. Table 32 Mitigated Project Only Operational Noise Levels Receiver Location1 Mitigated Noise Levels by Noise Source (dBA Leq)2 Combined Operational Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Truck Unloading/ Docking Activity Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units Parking Lot Vehicle Movements R1 55.6 32.0 33.7 55.6 R2 50.5 35.5 33.5 50.7 R3 43.9 37.5 21.5 44.8 R4 44.7 41.6 37.0 46.9 R5 45.0 41.6 38.7 47.3 R6 28.6 38.5 26.8 39.2 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 7-2. Notes: 1. See Exhibit 12 for the receiver and noise source locations. 2. Reference noise sources as shown on Table 29. Individual noise source calculations are provided in Appendix 7.1 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Initial Study Appendix L). Table 33, Mitigated Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows that operational noise levels will satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga exterior noise level standards are all receiver locations, and the Project operational noise impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. Table 33 Mitigated Operational Noise Level Compliance Receiver Location1 Land Use Noise Level at Receiver Locations (dBA Leq)2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4 Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime R1 RES 55.6 65 60 No No R2 COM 50.7 70 65 No No R3 COM 44.8 70 65 No No R4 RES 46.9 65 60 No No R5 RES 47.3 65 60 No No R6 RES 39.2 65 60 No No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 7-5. Notes: 1. See Figure 12 for the receiver and noise source locations. 2. Estimated Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 32. 3. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 4. Do the estimated Project operational noise levels meet the operational noise level standards? To describe the operational noise level contributions, the project’s operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted by the proposed project. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are 174 174 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 129 logarithmic units, the project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation: SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the project’s operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined project and ambient noise levels describe the project noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when project-source noise is added to the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions are presented on Tables 34, Project Daytime Noise Level Contributions, and Table 35, Project Nighttime Noise Level Contributions, respectively. Tables 34 Project Daytime Noise Level Contributions Receiver Location1 Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Measurement Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Threshold7 Threshold Exceeded?7 R1 61.9 L1 67.8 68.8 1.0 1.5 No R2 50.7 L2 52.5 54.7 2.2 5.0 No R3 44.8 L3 67.9 67.9 0.0 1.5 No R4 46.9 L4 59.6 59.8 0.2 5.0 No R5 47.3 L5 51.2 52.7 1.5 5.0 No R6 39.2 L6 50.4 50.7 0.3 5.0 No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 7-6. Notes: 1. See Exhibit 12 for the receiver and noise source locations. 2. Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 31. 3. Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 14. 4. Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 24. 5. Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6. The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7. Significance Criteria as defined in Table 23. 175 175 Figure 16 Operational Mitigation Phelan Development 9th Street and Vineyard Ave Warehouses City of Rancho Cucamonga Not to scale Figure provided by Phelan DevelopmentO Date: 10/4/2019 176176 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 131 Tables 35 Project Nighttime Noise Level Contributions Receiver Location1 Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Measurement Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Threshold7 Threshold Exceeded?7 R1 61.9 L1 62.2 65.1 2.9 3.0 No R2 50.7 L2 51.2 54.0 2.8 5.0 No R3 44.8 L3 62.3 62.4 0.1 3.0 No R4 46.9 L4 53.9 54.7 0.8 5.0 No R5 47.3 L5 49.1 51.3 2.2 5.0 No R6 39.2 L6 49.4 49.8 0.4 5.0 No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 7-7. Notes: 1. See Exhibit 12 for the receiver and noise source locations. 2. Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 31. 3. Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 14. 4. Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 24. 5. Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6. The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7. Significance Criteria as defined in Table 23. As shown in Table 34 and Table 35, the proposed project would generate an unmitigated daytime operational noise level increase of up to 2.2 dBA Leq and a nighttime operational noise level increase of up to 2.9 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Since project-related operational noise level contributions will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table 23, the increases at the sensitive receiver locations will be less than significant. On this basis, project operational stationary-source noise would not result in a substantial temporary/periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site above levels existing without the project and impacts in these regards will be less than significant. Specifically regarding Receiver Location R1, because R1 represents noise-sensitive allowed uses, Mitigation Measure N-4, located at the end of this section, will be required reduce the operational noise level impacts. This measure would require that a noise barrier at a minimum of 8-feet be placed along the north project site boundary as shown in Figure 16. The noise barrier shall be constructed using masonry block, earthen berm or a combination of construction materials capable of the minimum weight of 4 pounds per square foot or a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. Therefore, Noise impacts associated with project operation would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receiver locations to less than significant levels for construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure N-4 applies to noise generated during long-term operation of the project, and with implementation, potential noise impacts associated with operations at the site would be less than significant 13(b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. 177 177 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 132 Construction Vibration Ground-borne vibration levels from automobile traffic are generally overshadowed by vibration generated by heavy trucks that roll over the same uneven roadway surfaces. However, due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the human response (annoyance) using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). To describe the human response (annoyance) associated with vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation (where PPVequip represents equipment. PPV is peak particle velocity. PPVref represents reference source vibration; D represents distance, and 1.5 references soil attenuation): PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 While vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 36, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment. Table 36 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Small bulldozer 0.003 Jackhammer 0.035 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Large bulldozer 0.089 Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 8-11. Based on FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Construction activities associated with the proposed project most likely to cause vibration impacts are: • Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. • Haul Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the project site were estimated by data published by FTA. Construction activities that would have the potential to 178 178 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 133 generate low levels of ground-borne vibration within the project site include grading. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided on Table 36 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA (see source notes in Table 36), it is possible to estimate the vibration impacts associated with project construction. Table 37, Unmitigated Project Construction Vibration Levels, shows the anticipated project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. Note: receiver locations for Noise are the same as for Vibration. This analysis shown on Table 37 indicates the highest construction vibration levels are expected to approach 0.068 in/sec PPV, which is shown to exceed the Caltrans 0.04 in/sec PPV at receiver locations R1, R4, and R5; thereby representing a potentially significant vibration impact during project construction. Note: Caltrans thresholds are presented in the Significance Criteria Used to Evaluate Project Noise section above. Table 37 Unmitigated Project Construction Vibration Levels IDr1 Distance to Construction Activity Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2 Threshold Threshold Exceeded?3 Small B’dozer Jack hammer Loaded Trucks Large B’dozer Peak Vibration Building Damage Annoyance Building Damage Annoyance R1 35 0.002 0.021 0.046 0.054 0.054 0.3 0.04 No Yes R2 182 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.3 0.04 No No R3 110 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.3 0.04 No No R4 38 0.002 0.019 0.041 0.047 0.047 0.3 0.04 No Yes R5 30 0.002 0.027 0.058 0.068 0.068 0.3 0.04 No Yes R6 116 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.3 0.04 No No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 8-12. Notes: 1. Receiver Locations are shown in Figure 12. 2. Based on the vibration source levels of construction equipment included in Table 36. 3. Does the peak vibration exceed the vibration thresholds shown in Table 23. The analysis of the project showed that the highest construction vibration levels are expected to approach 0.068 in/sec PPV when large bulldozers would be in use. High vibration levels can also be expected with Loaded Trucks reaching vibration levels up to 0.058 in/sec PPV. These impacts would exceed the Caltrans 0.04 in/sec PPV at receiver locations R1, R4, and R5; thereby representing a potentially significant vibration impact during project construction. Therefore, a 100-foot buffer zone (mitigation measure N-1) is required which would restrict the use of large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds) within 100-feet of occupied sensitive receiver locations represented by R1, R4, and R5 (see Figure 12). With implementation of this mitigation measures, project construction vibration levels would be reduced to 0.011 in/sec PPV, will satisfy the Caltrans 0.04 in/sec PPV 179 179 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 134 annoyance threshold, and represent less than significant impacts with mitigation. This is shown in Table 38, Mitigated Project Construction Vibration Levels. Table 38 Mitigated Project Construction Vibration Levels IDr1 Distance to Construction Activity Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2 Threshold Threshold Exceeded?3 Small B’dozer Jack hammer Loaded Trucks Large B’dozer Peak Vibration Building Damage Annoyance Building Damage Annoyance R1 35 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.3 0.04 No No R2 182 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.3 0.04 No No R3 110 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.3 0.04 No No R4 38 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.3 0.04 No No R5 30 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.3 0.04 No No R6 116 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.3 0.04 No No Source: Urban Crossroads, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table 8-13. Notes: 1. Receiver Locations are shown in Figure 12. 2. Based on the vibration source levels of construction equipment included in Table 36. 3. Does the peak vibration exceed the vibration thresholds shown in Table 23. Finally, project-related construction vibration levels do not represent levels capable of causing building damage to nearby residences. Caltrans identifies construction vibration levels capable of building damage approaching 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures. The peak, unmitigated project- construction vibration levels approaching 0.068 in/sec PPV will remain below the Caltrans vibration levels for building damage at adjacent properties. Moreover, it is unlikely that the impacts at the site of the closest sensitive receivers would be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the project site perimeter. Operation Warehouse operations at the project site would include heavy trucks moving on site to and from the loading dock areas. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. Typical vibration for heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds is anticipated to approach 0.004 in/sec PPV at 25 feet based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Trucks moving around the project site will be travelling at very low speeds so it is expected that delivery truck vibration impacts at nearby homes will satisfy the Caltrans 0.04 in/sec PPV annoyance and 0.3 in/sec PPV building damage vibration thresholds, and therefore, would be less than significant. For other activities on site, the City's Development Code requires that all industrial uses be conducted within an enclosed building; hence, no adverse operational impact to nearby residential uses is expected. Further, the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant prior to 180 180 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 135 occupancy to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses. Given that loading docks designed for the northernmost building adjacent to sensitive receptors, Mitigation Measure N-4 is provided to ensure impacts are less than significant to adjacent residential uses. 13(c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 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? Determination: No Impact. The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The project is located approximately 2.5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. However, and unrelated to Noise, the project is located within the FAA’s Height Notification Area for the Ontario Airport; an area that extends north of Foothill Blvd. The applicant must notify the FAA Regional office using Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. See Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for further discussion of the notification requirements. Specifically, regarding Noise, there would be no impact to employees due to the distance from the airport. MITIGAITON MEASURES Construction Figure 15 shows the receiver locations and where the noise barrier should be constructed as described in Mitigation Measure N-1. N-1 If receiver locations R1, R4, and R5 represent owned and/or occupied noise-sensitive uses at the time of project construction, the following mitigation measures are required to reduce the construction noise and vibration level impacts: • Large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 100 feet of owned and occupied noise-sensitive residential homes, as shown on Figure 12, represented by receiver locations R1, R4, and R5, during Project construction activities. Instead, small rubber-tired or alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects. • Construct the minimum 8-foot high noise barrier as previously described to reduce project operational noise levels at the northern project site boundary, shown on Figure 12, prior to the start of Project construction activities. o If it is not feasible to construct the minimum 8-foot high noise barrier at the norther Project site boundary prior to project construction, an equivalent, minimum 8-foot high temporary construction noise barrier is required at the project’s northern site boundary adjacent to the receiver location R1, for the duration of project construction activities. The noise control barriers must present a solid face from top to bottom. The noise control barrier must meet the minimum height and be constructed as follows: • The barrier shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. The noise barrier may be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or 181 181 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 136 quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; • The noise barriers must be maintained and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. • The noise control barriers and associated elements shall be completely removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. Other measures N-2 Construction or grading (including 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. 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. N-3 Compliance with Development Code Section 17.6.05(D)(4) regarding construction noise as follows: • Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: o When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. o When adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA at the when measured at the adjacent property line. Operation N-4 If receiver location R1 represents owned and/or occupied noise-sensitive uses at the time of Project operation, the following noise barrier is required to reduce the operational noise level impacts (see Figure 16): • A minimum 8-foot high noise barrier at the northern Project site boundary is required as shown on Exhibit ES-A. The barrier shall provide a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways, or a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. (2) The barriers shall consist of a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall 182 182 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 137 not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. The noise barriers shall be constructed using the following materials: o Masonry block; o Earthen berm; o Or any combination of construction materials capable of the minimum weight of 4 pounds per square foot or a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. IMPACT CONCLUSION The result of the Noise Impact Analysis was that with implementation of mitigation measures, including the development of a perimeter barrier (wall) around the northern portion of site nearest to sensitive receptors, impacts associated with project construction and operation would be less than significant. 183 183 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 138 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?  b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?  DISCUSSION 14(a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. Once constructed, the proposed project will have a limited number of employees; hence, will not create a demand for additional housing as a majority of the employees will likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. No significant impacts are anticipated. 14(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. According to SCAG’s Local Profile for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (May 2019), there are 59,318 dwelling units in the City. The proposed project includes the demolition of two residences and several non-residential buildings. This represents a negligible number of structures and thus would not require the development of new residential units elsewhere in the City. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. IMPACT CONCLUSION The removal of two residences would be negligible when considered with the existing available residential units that exist in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 184 184 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 139 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. 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?  DISCUSSION 15(a) Fire Protection? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located on 9th Street west of Vineyard Avenue in an established General Industrial district that is adjacent to residential uses to the north and west. The site would be served by a fire station located at 9612 San Bernardino Road just west of Archibald Avenue, located approximately 2 miles northeast of the project site. Under existing conditions, the project site is developed with two residences and a number of non-residential buildings of varying ages. Redevelopment of the site with three new warehouse buildings built to the latest Uniform Fire code standards and would also improve site access for emergency vehicles. The project would not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project to lessen the future demand and impacts to fire services. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 15(b) Police Protection? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The Rancho Cucamonga Police Headquarters is located at 10510 Civic Center Drive, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project site. 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. Redevelopment of the site with three new warehouse buildings built to the latest Building Code standards would improve site access for emergency vehicles and would not likely result in an increase in calls for service. 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 already developed and is within an area that is regularly patrolled. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 15(c) Schools? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in a developed area currently served by the Cucamonga School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The project will be required to pay School Fees as prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of building permits. For example, the 2019 CSD’s rate for 185 185 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 140 Industrial/Warehouse/ Manufacturing land uses is $0.079 per square foot. In addition, the proposed project is a non-residential project that would not directly contribute new students to the school districts. Therefore, with the payment of fees, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 15(d) Parks? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The site is in a developed area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed project is a non- residential project that would not directly contribute new residents that would use the City’s parks. Although it is anticipated that some new employees already live in the City or may move to be closer to the job. The nearest park is Bear Gulch Park, located ½ miles northeast of the project site. Other parks in the vicinity include Red Hill Park located approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site; Old Town Park, located approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site; and Golden Oak Park located approximately 1 mile southeast 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 park facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. Therefore, with the payment of fees, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 15(e) Other Public Facilities? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. As a warehouse project, it 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 public facilities such as libraries and community centers. 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 public facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Development Impact Fees. Therefore, with the payment of fees, a less than significant impact is anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURES Impacts were found to be less than significant for Public Services. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. IMPACT CONCLUSION Payment of Development Impact Fees as required of all new development would ensure that impacts associated with development of the proposed project would be less than significant. 186 186 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 141 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. 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?  DISCUSSION 16(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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is located 1/2 mile from the project site. Other parks in the vicinity include Red Hill Park located approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site; Old Town Park, located approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site; and Golden Oak Park located approximately 1 mile southeast of the project site. The proposed project does not include 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 Development Impact Fees. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 16(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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. See response to 16(a). MITIGATION MEASURES Impacts were found to be less than significant for Public Services. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. IMPACT CONCLUSION Payment of Development Impact Fees as required of all new development would ensure that impacts associated with development of the proposed project would be less than significant. 187 187 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 142 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?  c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  d) Result in inadequate emergency access?  DISCUSSION 17(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. A Trip Generation Analysis was conducted for the proposed project (Appendix M). The project site is located in an area without access to public transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. There is no plan to provide public transit infrastructure to the area at this time. No bicycle infrastructure is proposed for 9th Street or Vineyard Avenue at this time. Regarding pedestrian access, the project includes a sidewalk along the north side of 9th Street in front of the site that would connect to the existing sidewalk west of the project site. Existing Site Related Trips The project site has several buildings currently occupied by the Roland’s of California Wholesale Floral Supply and EMS Companies. These existing buildings will be demolished once the project is completed and will lead to a reduction of trips from the existing baseline conditions. Therefore, the trips associated with the existing buildings were subtracted from the proposed project trips to identify the net new trip generation. The existing trips were generated from traffic counts that were collected at the existing driveways. Under existing conditions, the site generates 44 am peak hour trips and 29 pm peak hour trips; and 135 daily trips. These represent passenger car equivalents (PCEs) where trips associated with truck intensive uses are typically evaluated by converting truck trips to PCEs. Truck trips were converted to PCEs using conversion rates of 1.5 for 2-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks and 3.0 for 4+ axle trucks. Proposed Project The San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (2016) outline the requirements for a traffic impact analysis based on the forecasted trip generation of a project. In general, 50 two-way peak hour trips represent the minimum number of trips at which a 188 188 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 143 typical intersection would have the potential to be substantively impacted by a given development project. This “50 peak hour trip” criterion is consistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis methodology utilized by the County of San Bernardino. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 41 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 47 trips in the p.m. peak hour, and 414 daily trips which translate to 54 PCE trips during the a.m. peak hour, 63 PCE trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 544 daily PCE trips. Net New Project Trip Generation Because the existing buildings will be demolished and replaced with three new warehouse buildings, existing trips were subtracted from the proposed project trip generation to obtain the net new trip generation. Table 39, Project Trip Generation Summary, shows the total net new trips at the project site. As shown in Table 39, the project is anticipated to generate 10 net new a.m. peak hour PCE trips, 34 net new p.m. peak hour PCE trips, and 409 net new daily PCE trips. Table 39 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use Am Peak Hour Pm Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Warehouse Passenger Cars 24 8 32 9 27 36 328 Total Truck PCEs 12 10 22 5 22 27 216 Total PCEs 36 18 54 14 49 63 544 Existing Facilities Passenger Cars 18 16 34 14 15 29 122 Total Truck PCEs 5 5 10 0 0 0 13 Total PCEs 23 21 44 14 15 29 135 New Net Trip Generation 13 -3 10 0 34 34 409 Source: Translutions, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Rancho Cucamonga, California – Trip Generation Analysis, March 2019 (revised October 2019), Table C. The City of Rancho Cucamonga requires a traffic study if the trip generation of a project is more than 50 trips during a peak hour. Based on the above calculations, the project is forecast to generate 10 net PCE trips during the a.m. peak hour, 34 net PCE trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 409 net daily PCE trips. Since the trip generation of the project is less than 50 trips during any peak hour, no additional traffic impact analysis is required, and project impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 17(b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) sets forth the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Specifically, this section of the Guidelines focuses on land use projects and associated vehicle miles traveled. Subsection (b)(4) describes a lead agency’s discretion in choosing the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled. For the project site, due to its location within an area of the City that is largely developed with a mix of residential, commercial and warehouse uses, as well as anticipated additional warehouse uses that would be developed on currently vacant land south of the project site, and the vehicle mix shown in 189 189 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 144 Table 39, the City determined that daily vehicle trips associated with the site’s new warehouse uses would be minimal and that no further traffic study was required. Most trips are associated with employees that were assumed to live locally or delivery vehicles that would stop at the site along a daily route. The remaining daily vehicles are associated with the larger trucks that would pick up a load at the warehouse and could travel out of the region. Therefore, the vehicle miles traveled associate with this project would have a less than significant on the transportation system. 17(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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 intersection of 9th Street & Vineyard Avenue, the intersection closest to the Project, was studied for eastbound right turn movements (Translutions, June 6, 2019). Currently, the curb and gutter on the southwest side of the intersection makes a sharp 90 degree turn, and is not consistent with the gentle, rounded curb and gutter that exists on the other points of the intersection. The report noted that this non-consistent intersection geometry also appears at several other intersections, including the intersection of Foothill Boulevard & Vineyard Avenue, an intersection of two major streets. Translutions also evaluated accident data at the intersection of 9th and Vineyard. Based on the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), between January 2012 and December 2017, there have been three accidents in the vicinity of the intersection. None of the accidents involved trucks. During the same timeframe, the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue had 5 accidents, and there too, none of the accidents involved trucks. The Translutions report identified that under existing conditions, it may be difficult for large trucks to make the eastbound right turn. The report also identified a number of measures that could be undertaken for trucks to make the right turn more efficiently. These recommendations are incorporated as Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 through TRAF-3. Mitigation measures are located at the end of this section. 17(d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in the General Plan Program EIR, Transportation Section, the plan check and building permit process by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District includes review of access for emergency vehicles, in accordance with the California Fire Code. Compliance with the requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance would ensure that adequate emergency access is available for all new development and redevelopment projects. In addition, the project site is in an existing developed area of the City where roadways already exist, so no new roadways are required. The City’s Standard Condition of Approval SC 4.16-4 applies to the proposed project regarding emergency access. This condition is identified in the Mitigation Measures section in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ- 3, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. 190 190 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 145 MITIGATION MEASURES The net new trips generated by the proposed project would be minimal and no significant impact were identified. However, Mitigation Measures have been identified to alleviate the inconsistent geometry of the intersection: TRAF-1 Prior to occupancy of the first building, the westbound receiving lane shall be widened to include the existing left turn lane. TRAF-2 Prior to occupancy of the first building, the eastbound approach of the intersection shall be restriped to provide one eastbound through-left turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane. TRAF-3 Prior to occupancy of the first building, the applicant shall install signage that restricts trucks from turning right. A combination of R3-1 and R20D-2 (CA) with restrictions on 4 or more axles is recommended. IMPACT CONCLUSION The Project impacts will be less than significant with the incorporation of HAZ-3 and TRAF-1 through TRAF-3 mitigation measures. The project is responsible for the payment of traffic impact fees. 191 191 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 146 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with the cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or  b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.  DISCUSSION 18(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is not listed or eligible for listing as an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). The code section is specific to a “local register of historical resources”, meaning a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the findings the project’s Cultural Resources Memo, are that none of the buildings on site have previously been listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), nor have they been listed as Rancho Cucamonga Landmarks, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section 2.24.050). As a result of the findings, none of the resources are recommended as potential CEQA historical resources. In addition, the research completed for the Cultural Resources memo included a literature search at the South Central Coastal Information Center, as well as a request to the California Native American Heritage Commission for a search of its Sacred Lands file. No historic resources were identified through these searches, and a review to determine the eligibility of the eight historic-era buildings at the project site was completed and no buildings were recommended for listing under architectural or archaeological 192 192 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 147 criteria. However, negative findings do not preclude historical resources from being uncovered during grading/construction activities. See 18(b) below specifically regarding Tribal Cultural Resources that may be considered historic if uncovered during construction, and mitigation measures provided by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. Measures include monitoring during construction as well as steps to be taken should unknown resources be discovered. These measures have been provided by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation for this project and other development projects in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adjacent cities within the Tribe’s ancestral lands. Therefore, with implementation of measures for the monitoring and recovery of any unknown buried historical resources, impacts would be less than significant. 18(b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, when a lead agency prepares a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) it must also conduct Tribal Consultation. This section specifically addresses Tribal Cultural Resources as required under CEQA Section 21074 as follows: (a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following: (1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. (B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (k). (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in Section 5024.1(c) for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. (c) A historical resource described in CEQA Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Section 21083.2(g), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in CEQA Section 21083.2(h) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a). CEQA Section 21080.3.1(b) requires that prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin 193 193 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 148 consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe; and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation. When responding to the lead agency, the California Native American tribe shall designate a lead contact person. If the California Native American tribe does not designate a lead contact person, or designates multiple lead contact people, the lead agency shall defer to the individual listed on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004. For purposes of this section and Section 21080.3.2, “consultation” shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 65352.4 of the Government Code. Consultation On October 1, 2019, the City of Rancho Cucamonga sent a request for consultation to the tribal representatives who have indicated that they wish to receive such requests per AB 52. To date, one tribe, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation has responded and requested formal consultation. That meeting occurred on November 2, 2019 in the form of a conference call.. The representative of the Tribe provided relevant information (copies of maps and text) regarding their traditional ancestral territory within the area that now constitutes Rancho Cucamonga and surrounding cities. As a follow up to the conference call, the Tribal representative provided the following information: The 8768 E 9th St. 1938 map indicates the project location within the Village of Cucamonga. All of our mainland villages (sans our island villages) overlapped each other to help facilitate the movement of tribal cultural resources throughout the landscape and also to our sister tribes outside of our traditional ancestral territory. Village use areas were usually shared between village areas and were commonly used by two or more adjoining villages depending on the type, quantity, quality, and availability of natural resources in the area. Therefore, human activity can be pronounced within the shared use areas due to the combined use by multiple villages and TCR’s may be present in the soil layers from the thousands of years of human activity within that landscape. The 8768 E 9th St. 1901 map and the 8768 E 9th St. 1898 map shows the project's close proximity to a railroad that existed north of this project location. All railroads were placed on top of our Tribe's traditional trade routes because when the first railroad planners came out west, the topography was too varied to place the rail lines just anyplace, so they chose the paths of least resistance that already existed which were our traditional trade routes that were flattened by human travel over thousands of years of use. The 8768 E 9th St. 1938 and the 8768 E 9th St. 1881 map shows the many trade routes around the project area. Trade routes were heavily used by our Tribe for movement of trade items, visiting of family, going to ceremony, accessing recreation areas, and accessing foraging areas. 194 194 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 149 Within and around these routes contained seasonal or permanent ramadas or trade depots, seasonal and permanent habitation areas, and often still contain isolated burials and cremations from folks who died along the trail. These isolated burials are not associated with a village community burial site or ceremonial burial site, rather the location is simply where the person died and was buried where they died. Therefore, isolated burials are more concentrated and likely to occur in proximity to our trade routes, especially the major trade routes. Trade routes are considered “cultural landscapes”, as stated in section 21074 (a) because the landscapes will house the objects, therefore, both cultural landscapes and cultural objects are protected under AB52 as a tribal cultural resource. The 8768 E 9th St. 1988 map indicates the hydrography or waterways that exist around the project area, most notably Cucamonga Creek. All water sources were used by our Tribe for life sustenance as well as travel and movement of trade items. Along these watercourses and water bodies occurred seasonal or permanent hamlets, seasonal or permanent trade depots, ceremonial and religious prayer sites, and burials and cremation sites of our ancestors. These activities occurred around water, both inland and coastal, because these water areas create unique habitats and riparian corridors that provide an abundance of food and medicine resources along with aesthetically peaceful areas with running water, shade trees, and shelter. Larger water bodies were high attractants for human activity and the banks and shores of these water bodies have a higher than average potential for encountering Tribal Cultural Resources of artifacts and human remains during ground disturbing activities. Waterways are a “cultural landscape”, as stated in section 21074. (a) and are protected under AB52 as a tribal cultural resource. Due to the project site being located within and around a sacred village (Cucamonga), adjacent to sacred water courses (Cucamonga Creek), and major traditional trade routes, there is a high potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources still present within the soil from the thousands of years of prehistoric activities that occurred within and around these Tribal Cultural landscapes. Therefore, to avoid impacting or destroying Tribal Cultural Resources that may be inadvertently unearthed during the project's ground disturbing activities, attached is the mitigation language approved by our Tribal Government for use with this project. Because the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation has provided information on their ancestral occupation of the area within a mile of the 9th and Vineyard project site, and indicated that Tribal Cultural Resources may be present in the soil layers from the thousands of years of human activity within that landscape, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-7 were identified to be implemented during grading and construction of the project site. With implementation of these measures, impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant: The project applicant shall retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC’s Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement 195 195 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 150 removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. TCR-4 Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discovery, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant will immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains 196 196 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 151 are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). TCR-5 Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the following treatment measures shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. TCR-6 Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24- hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. TCR-7 Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal 197 197 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 152 investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. IMPACT CONCLUSION Tribal Consultation between the City and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation has been completed, and implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-6 would ensure that impacts associated with the development of the project site would be less than significant. 198 198 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 153 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?  b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?  c) 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?  d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?  e) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?  DISCUSSION 19(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Sewer and Wastewater Treatment The project site is served by the CVWD sewer system located in 9th Street. Wastewater is conveyed to and treated at the Inland Empire Utilities Agency RP-1 and RP-4 treatment plants. The RP-1 capacity is sufficient to handle the additional development within the western and southern areas of the City, including the proposed project. The proposed project is the removal of residential and nonresidential land uses from the site and replacing them with three warehouses that include some office space. Warehouses of this type generally employ a small number of people. The applicant has estimated that between the three buildings, there could be 20 to 40 employees on site during the workday. Wastewater would be generated from sinks and toilets, as generally there are no showers or laundry facilities associated with typical warehouses uses. Therefore, the project architect has indicated that wastewater generation at the project site would be similar to the generation of the residential and non- residential uses that until recently, occupied the project site. RP-4 treatment plant has a potential 199 199 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 154 ultimate capacity of 28 mgd which is considered to have more than adequate capacity to treat all increases in wastewater generation for buildout of the General Plan. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. Therefore, impacts to sewer and wastewater treatment would be less than significant. Water Supply The proposed project is not expected to use large quantities of water as the site is being developed as a warehouse rather than a manufacturing facility. The project will likely employ 20 to 40 employees during the workday, between the three warehouses. Water facilities will likely be limited to bathrooms and a kitchen; plus irrigation for drought-tolerant landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project would not require substantial amounts of water requiring the expansion of existing water facilities. According to the architect’s calculations, the proposed project’s water demand would be 20,774 gallons per day based on a design value of 1,700 gallons per day/acre for an industrial application. The majority of this demand is for irrigation. Using an average of 300 gallons per day for a typical household of 3, water usage at the project site would equate to approximately 70 residences. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Storm Water A Preliminary Drainage Report was prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K) that describes existing and proposed site conditions. Under existing conditions, the site is approximately 80 percent developed with impervious surfaces (pavement, rooftops) and 20 percent pervious (landscape, bare ground). The site is developed with nine free standing buildings, asphalt pavement, curb and gutter, and miscellaneous utilities. The project site generally flows from the northwest corner to the southeast corner. Existing offsite flows from a residential subdivision discharge onto the project site. The commingle overland flows exit the site onto 9th Street or infiltrate on the property. Existing flows are collected via existing curb inlets and ultimately flow into the Cucamonga Creek channel under controlled conditions. Under proposed conditions, stormwater generated by the proposed project will be a combination of sheet flow (captured by inlets) and pipe flow. The site plan shows that underground infiltration basins will be developed along the east side of the project site adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek channel. These basins will be connected to a proposed underground storm drain system that will convey flows from the basins to the existing 66” storm drain located in 9th Street. According to the Drainage Study, the storm drain in 9th Street has capacity to accept drainage from the project site, as the site is already developed so the proposed flows do not necessarily represent new flows. Therefore, impacts on the existing storm drain system would be less than significant. Electricity, Natural Gas and Telecommunications These dry utilities exist in the vicinity and currently connect to the site to serve the past uses of the site. The applicant has been in contact with Southern California Edison (electrical service), Southern California Gas Company (natural gas service), and Frontier Communications (phone and internet service) and received “will serve” letters from these utility purveyors, indicating that the site can be served. Therefore, there would be no impact. 200 200 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 155 The applicant has received “will serve” letters from these utility purveyors. Therefore, there would be no impact. 19(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. According to CVWD, approximately 35 percent of the City's water is currently provided from water supplies coming from the underlying Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins. CVWD complies with its prescriptive water rights as managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster and will not deplete the local groundwater resource. The proposed project does not include development of an on-site well and 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, Water Resources. These facilities are all located north of the project site in the washes associated with creeks including Cucamonga Creek, Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek. 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 Program EIR (Section 4.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs but will not be a significant impact. CVWD has plans to meet this increased need to the year 2035, according to CVWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) adopted in June 2016. Therefore, impacts on groundwater supplies associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. 19(c) 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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. See response to 19(a) above. 19(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. 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. The end users of the three warehouses is unknown at this time, however, warehousing is not a large generator of solid waste. The generation of solid waste would be limited to typical office, breakroom and bathroom trash; and greenwaste from landscape maintenance. There may be additional cardboard and other paper products associated with breaking up larger packing boxes. New tenants would be required to recycle per the City’s requirements and greenwaste would be sent to a composting facility. The City’s contract hauler is Burrtec Waste Industries, with headquarters in the City of Fontana. Burrtec owns and operates the West Valley Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility (TS/MRF), located at 13373 Napa Street in the City of Fontana, approximately 5.5 miles east of the project site. At this location, waste haul trucks coming from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other cities served by Burrtec, transfer their loads to a larger transfer trailer. Once full the trailer is hauled to a landfill. It is unknown whether, on a daily basis the transfer trailer is hauled to the Mid Valley Landfill (2390 N. Alder Avenue) in Rialto, approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the TS/MRF, or another landfill such as El Sobrante (10910 Dawson Canyon Road), located approximately 20 miles southwest of the TS/MRF (personal communication with Gary Koontz, Facilities Manager, Burrtec Waste Industries October 21, 201 201 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 156 2019). However, because the City of Rancho Cucamonga is in the County of San Bernardino, and the nearest County landfill is the Mid Valley Landfill; this is the logical landfill for disposal of solid waste from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The landfill accepts municipal solid waste, construction and demolition (C&D) waste, industrial waste, tires; and also includes a chip and grind facility with a composting component. Under County’s current permit with CalRecycle (36-AA-0055) the Mid Valley Landfill has capacity through 2033. The State also requires that recycling occur during both construction and operation of a project. Construction California Green Building Standards Code For construction the applicant must prepare a construction Waste Management Plan per California Green Building Standards Code Section 5.408.1.1. The Plan shall: • Identify the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from disposal by efficient usage, recycling, reuse on the project or salvage for future use or sale. • Determine if construction and demolition waste materials will be sorted on-site (source- separated) or bulk mixed (single stream). • Identify diversion facilities where construction and demolition waste material collected will be taken. • Specify that the amount of construction and demolition waste materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both. Section 5.408.1.2 goes on to state that the applicant shall utilize a waste management company that can provide verifiable documentation that the percentage of construction and demolition waste material diverted from the landfill complies with this section. However, a note in this section also states that the owner or contractor shall make the determination if the construction and demolition waste material will be diverted by a waste management company. In either case, verifiable documentation must be provided to the City. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code The City Municipal Code Section 8.19.030 requires that construction and demolition contractors meet certain diversion requirements as follows: A. All construction and demolition projects are required to divert a minimum of 65% of the tonnage generated as a result of the project from the landfill. Separate calculations and reports will be required for the demolition and for the construction portion of projects involving both demolition and construction. B. Every structure planned for demolition shall be made available for deconstruction, salvage and recovery prior to demolition. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, the general contractor and all subcontractors to recover the maximum feasible amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to demolition. Recovered and salvaged 202 202 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 157 designated recyclable and reusable materials from the deconstruction phase shall qualify to be counted in meeting the diversion requirements of this chapter. Recovered or salvaged materials may be given or sold on the premises or may be removed to reuse warehouse facilities for storage or sale. (Ord. No. 941 Section 2, 2018) The City Municipal Code Section 8.19.040 also requires an applicant to prepare a Waste Management and Recycling Plan as follows A. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, each person who applies for a building or demolition permit pursuant to chapter 17.010 shall complete a “waste management and recycling plan” document to be issued by the engineering services department. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, no building or demolition permit shall be issued unless the “waste management and recycling plan” has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the engineering services department. Any changes to the approved plan must be brought to the attention of the engineering services department for review and approval prior to commencing work. B. The Engineering Services Department director is authorized to create guidelines setting forth the information to be included in the “waste management plan,” as well as the form thereof. At a minimum, the “waste management plan” shall delineate all of the following: 1. The C&D waste to be generated by the project. 2. The square footage of the proposed project. 3. The estimated weight of the C&D waste to be generated by the project, listed by material types. 4. The estimated weight of the C&D waste to be generated by the project to be diverted, listed by material types. 5. The certified recycling or material recovery facility or facilities to which C&D waste will be taken, listed by material types. 6. The estimated weight of the C&D waste that will be landfilled. (Ord. No. 941 § 2, 2018) Operation In order to assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino in achieving the State’s mandated goals for solid waste diversion from landfills, during operation the site operator will be required to do the following: • Provide separate bins on-site for separation of recyclable materials from refuse. • Provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. • The collection areas will be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. 203 203 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 158 The implementation of these requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the project and diverted from landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected landfills. The applicant would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant. 19(e) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. This project will comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURES Compliance with the utility provider requirements and the City’s requirements for recycling and solid waste diversion are adequate, and no additional Mitigation Measures are required. IMPACT CONCLUSION Redevelopment of the project site from residential and non-residential uses to warehousing and adhering to the latest requirements in order to receive service will ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on Utilities and Service Systems. 204 204 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 159 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, Would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?  b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?  c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?  d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?  DISCUSSION 20(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City’s Emergency Management Division is responsible for maintaining and updating the City’s emergency plans, which includes evacuation plans. In addition, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requires a Fire Protection Plan for all development within hazardous fire areas; although the project site is not located within a hazardous fire area. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identified the south west part of the City as a Focus Area for change either because there are still undeveloped properties or because residential neighborhoods are moving closer to existing light industrial and warehouse uses. Therefore, it is important that existing roadways and emergency routes are maintained in support of emergency vehicles and that the proposed project provide adequate site access for emergency vehicles. The project site will have two points of ingress/egress from 9th Street. As described in the General Plan Program EIR, Transportation Section, the plan check and building permit process by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District includes review of access for emergency vehicles, in accordance with the California Fire Code. Compliance with the requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance would ensure that adequate emergency access is available for all new development and redevelopment projects. In addition, the project site is in an existing developed area of the City where roadways already exist, so no new roadways are required. Standard Condition of Approval SC 4.16-4 applies to the proposed project regarding emergency access to ensure project 205 205 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 160 impacts would be less than significant. This condition is identified in the Mitigation Measures section in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. 20(b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that is generally flat to gently sloping. Although the project site, like the rest of the City experiences high winds during Santa Ana conditions, it is not located within a designated wildfire hazard area (per General Plan Figure PS-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones), including a California Division of Forestry (CAL FIRE) State Responsibility Area, that is generally located north of the SR-210 Freeway near the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains (see Figure 1). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 20(c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga where all dry and wet utilities are available to connect to new on-site infrastructure. In addition, the project site is currently developed with residential and non-residential uses that are provided with these utilities. The site is currently accessible to 9th Street. The proposed project must comply with all applicable Fire Department requirements for construction and operation of warehouse buildings, including adequate fire suppression, site access and emergency evacuation planning. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 20(d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that is generally flat to gently sloping and is not located within a designated wildfire hazard area. The project’s Preliminary Drainage Report (Appendix K) characterizes the project site as a moderately flat site based on the regional topography sloping from the northwest to the southeast. The project site is part of a larger drainage area tributary to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District Cucamonga Creek, which is located along the eastern edge of the project site. The Cucamonga Creek ultimately discharges into the Prado Dam. The project site is covered by Map Number 06071C8630J of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, community number 060671, is included in this FIRM. A portion of the project site is within a FEMA-mapped flood hazard area: the 0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or within drainage areas of less than one square mile. The remainder of the project is within the Minimum Hazard Area - 500-year floodplain (Area Outside of 0.2 percent Annual Chance of Flood Hazard), which is an area of minimal flooding. The effective FEMA map is dated February 18, 2015 (per Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Figure PS-5, Flood Hazard Zones). 206 206 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 161 In addition, the City’s General Plan Public Health and Safety Element Figure PS-5 shows that the eastern portion of the project site is in a Moderate Flood Hazard Area (500-year flood plain) but that it is protected by a levee (the concrete walls of the flood channel). The proposed project includes the development of a perimeter wall around the property that would further protect the site from flooding associated with the Cucamonga Creek channel. Therefore, this impact, including the risk release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES See HAZ-3 in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, regarding emergency response planning. IMPACT CONCLUSION The project site is currently developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses and is located in an urbanized area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga where all dry and wet utilities are available to connect to new on-site infrastructure. The site is currently accessible to 9th Street. The project site is not located in a wildfire hazard area and, as described in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, will be protected from the 500-year flood associated with the Cucamonga Creek channel, by a solid wall. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire and flooding would be less than significant. 207 207 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 162 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Does the project: a) Have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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) 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) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?  DISCUSSION 21(a) Have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Regarding Biological Resources, the general Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project concluded that there is a potential for project construction to adversely affect nesting birds. Therefore, to avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during nesting season, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to conduct preconstruction surveys and, if nesting birds are found, to provide appropriate “no work” buffers around the nesting area. In addition, the Arborist’s Report identified 15 trees on-site that are considered Heritage trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to establish a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) around these trees to prevent adverse impacts during construction. Regarding Cultural Resources, the project Archaeologist identified Mitigation Measure CR-1 so that prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Cultural Resources monitoring plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented during ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure CR-2 was also identified to address the inadvertent uncovering of archaeological resources during ground 208 208 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 163 disturbing activities. Finally, Mitigation Measure CR-3 was identified for the inadvertent discovery of human remains on site. Specifically regarding Tribal Cultural Resources, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation provided information on their ancestral occupation of the area within a mile of the 9th and Vineyard project site, and indicated that Tribal Cultural Resources may be present in the soil layers from the thousands of years of human activity within that landscape. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-7 were provided by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation to be implemented during grading and construction of the project site. These measures are incorporated into the Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study and shall be implemented during grading and construction of the project site. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that potentially significant impacts to Biological and Cultural Resources would be less than significant. 21(b) 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)? Determination: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Upon approval of the proposed project, the applicant will be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Municipal Code. The 2010 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental effects of build-out in the City and Sphere-of- Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change and Mineral Resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. The project site is located in an area of the City that includes a mix of multi-family and industrial uses (predominantly warehouse and light industrial uses). With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. 21(c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the site under the existing General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly as set forth in Sections 1 through 20 of this Initial Study. Proposed mitigation measures for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, emissions of criteria pollutants during construction activities would be less than significant with contractor compliance with SCAQMD requirements for fugitive dust control and equipment/vehicle engine idling. The Initial Study also identified potentially significant impacts associated with the 209 209 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 164 exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less-than-significant levels. 210 210 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 165 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 FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) OTHER REFERENCES AEI Consultants, October 2019, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Property Information 8758 – 8798 and 8810 East 9th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County , California, 91730 ASM Affiliates, October 2019, Revised Due Diligence Cultural Resources Identification for the 9th and Vineyard Center, Scheme 9, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Begley, Dan, March 2019, Certified Arborist Report Burrtec Waste Industries, October 21, 2019, personal communication with Facilities Manager GeoCon West, Inc, February 2019, Geotechnical Investigation and Percolation Test Results, Warehouse Development North of East 9th Street and West of Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California Jericho Systems, March 2019, Biological Resources Assessment, 9th and Vineyard Warehouse, APNS 0207-262-41, 0207-262-42, 0207-262-28, 0207-262-35, 0207-262-36, 207-262-46, 207-262-45. 8768 9th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Kimley-Horn and Associates, May 2019, Preliminary Drainage Report, Phelan Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 9th and Vineyard Kimley-Horn and Associates, April 2019, Preliminary Water Quality Management PlanKimley-Horn and Associates, May 2019, Tentative Parcel Pam No. 20124 for Phelan 9th and Vineyard Kimley-Horn and Associates, May 2019, Conceptual Grading and Utility Plans for Phelan 9th and Vineyard Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2019, Profile of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. SPLA, September 2019, Conceptual Planting Plan, 9th and Vineyard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA T and T, Environmental, March 2019, Asbestos Inspection Report 211 211 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 166 Urban Crossroads, October 2019, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga Urban Crossroads, October 2019, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Energy Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga Urban Crossroads, October 2019, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga Urban Crossroads, October 2019, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Rancho Cucamonga Urban Crossroads, October 2019, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Noise Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga Urban Crossroads, October 2019, 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse, Trip Generation Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga Websites accessed by Initial Study section: Aesthetics https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i- scenic-highways http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm Hazards and Hazardous Materials https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/report_permitted_public, https://www.geotracker https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/dtsc-cortese-list/ https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm ) Land Use and Planning http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx APPENDICES Appendix A – Photometric Study Appendix B – Air Quality Assessment Appendix C – Health Risk Assessment Appendix D – Biological Resources Assessment Appendix E - Arborist Report 212 212 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 167 Appendix F – Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix G – Energy Analysis Appendix H – Geotechnical Analysis Appendix I – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Appendix J – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Appendix K – Preliminary Drainage Report Appendix L – Noise Impact Analysis Appendix M – Trip Generation Analysis 213 213 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Page 168 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Applicant's Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: 214 214 Appendix A – Photometric Study 215 215 Appendix B – Air Quality Assessment 216 216 Appendix C – Health Risk Assessment 217 217 Appendix D – Biological Resources Assessment 218 218 Appendix E - Arborist Report 219 219 Appendix F – Cultural Resources Assessment 220 220 Appendix G – Energy Analysis 221 221 Appendix H – Geotechnical Analysis 222 222 Appendix I – Greenhouse Gas Emissions 223 223 Appendix J – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) 224 224 Appendix K – Preliminary Drainage Report 225 225 Appendix L – Noise Impact Analysis 226 226 Appendix M – Trip Generation Analysis 227 227 Page 1 of 28 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: __DRC2018-00912_____________________________________ Applicant: Phelan Development Initial Study Prepared by: Mike Smith____________________________ Date: 12/02/19 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Section 1 - Aesthetics 1) Section 2 - Agricultural Resources 1) Section 3 – Air Quality Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 2) The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the midmorning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 3) The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 4) 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. PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 228228 Page 2 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 5) 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. PD/BO C Review of Plans C 2 6) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. BO C Review of Plans A/C 4 7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 8) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. BO B Review of Plans A/C 2 9) 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 PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 10) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 • Schedule activities to minimize the BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 229229 Page 3 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 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. BO C Review of Plans A 4 • 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. BO C During Construction A 4 • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. BO C During Construction A 4 • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. BO C During Construction A 4 11) 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 Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. BO C During Construction A 4 12) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. BO C During Construction A 4 Long Term Emissions and Impacts 13) Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. BO C During Construction A 4 14) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. BO C During Construction A 4 15) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours. BO C During Construction A 4 230230 Page 4 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 16) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. BO C During Construction A 4 17) Landscape with native and/or drought- resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. BO C During Construction A 4 18) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. BO C During Construction A 4 19) 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. BO C During Construction A 4 20) 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). BO C Review of Plans A 4 21) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/3 22) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. PD C Review of Plans D 2/3 23) 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. PD C Review of Plans D 2/3 24) All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or BO C/D Review of Plans C 2/4 231231 Page 5 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance after March 9, 2009. 25) During all construction activities (demolition, grading, construction, etc.) vehicles and equipment shall not idle more than 5 minutes. To this end, all construction plans, including demolition plans, shall reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on- site stating that construction workers must shut off engines at or before 5 minutes of idling. In this manner, construction equipment operators are informed that engines are to be turned off at or prior to 5 minutes of idling. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials. BO C During Inspection A 4 Section 4 - Biological Resources 1) Bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, April 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist shall conduct pre- construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to project-related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist shall set appropriate no-work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage and expected types, intensity and duration of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no-work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive. PD B Review of Plans C/D 2 232232 Page 6 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 2) Prior to ground-disturbing construction activities near any tree - heritage or otherwise – selected for preservation, a qualified biologist or arborist shall establish a tree protection zone (TPZ) around each tree or group of trees (for tree locations, see 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue Warehouse Project Certified Arborist Report, in Appendix E of the Initial Study). A TPZ is defined as an area that is temporarily fenced around a tree or group of trees where construction activities, including raking, cutting, storage of construction equipment or materials (including landscape equipment) shall occur. All construction personnel shall be instructed on the protocols to minimize impacts to trees and adhere closely to the TPZ requirements. PD B/C Review of Plans C/D 2 Section 5 – Cultural Resources 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or construction contractor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to prepare a monitoring plan for the project site. The monitoring plan shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Services Director or his/her designee and shall include: PD B Review of Plans C/D 2 • A training program for construction supervisors and crew members to recognize resources if they are encountered during ground disturbing construction activities; PD/BO C Review of Report A/D 3/4 • The construction supervisor shall be required to halt construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the suspected resource and redirect activities to another part of the site to allow the project archaeologist time to identify and evaluate the resource. No grading activity will recommence in that area PD/BO C Review of Report A/D 3/4 233233 Page 7 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance until cleared by the project archaeologist. • All mitigation measures shall be included in the notes on grading plans for the project. PD/BO C Review of Report A/D 3/4 2) If a significant archaeological resource is uncovered, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended within 100-feet of the potential resource(s). The project archaeologist shall notify the Development Services Director or his/her designee and the applicant to discuss the significance of the find and the mitigation that will be required. The project archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan that shall be implemented to protect the resource(s). A final report summarizing the significance of the resource(s) found, and the treatment of the resource(s) shall be submitted to the Development Services Director or his/her designee. If the resource(s) are determined to be Native American in origin, the project archaeologist shall notify the appropriate Native American Tribe(s) from a list provided by the City. Discovery of Human Remains The following California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 requirement for the inadvertent discovery of human remains is included as Mitigation Measure CR-3. PD/BO C Review of Report A/D 3/4 3) State Requirements for Human Remains. If human remains are unearthed during grading construction, the construction contractor is required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” Under Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be BO C During Construction A 3/4 234234 Page 8 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Section 6 – Geology and Soils 1) The Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the project (See Appendix H) provided a list of recommendations for the development of the project site. The Property Owner/Developer shall develop the site in compliance with the recommendations set forth in Section 8 of the Geotechnical Investigation and Percolation Test Results, Warehouse Development North of East 9th Street and West of Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California, February 2019, and as required under the California Building Code. GEO-2 If any paleontological resources (i.e., plant or animal BO C During Construction A 4 2) If any paleontological resources (i.e., plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Paleontologist to monitor construction activities, and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the monitoring program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: •A copy of the monitoring program shall be submitted the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development BO C During Construction A 4 235235 Page 9 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Services Director or his/her designee include a schedule for the periodic monitoring during grading and excavation operations. •The monitor shall have the ability to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of the soils that may contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. •The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of larger fossils in a timely manner. • The extent of the monitoring may be reduced if, in the opinion of the paleontologist, potentially fossiliferous units are not found in the subsurface, or if present that they are determined to be a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources. Section 7 – 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 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. BO C During Construction A 4 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. BO C During Construction A 4 236236 Page 10 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. BO C During Construction A 4 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. BO C During Construction A 4 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. BO C During Construction A 4 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for construction crew. BO C During Construction A 4 Long Term (Operational) GHG Emissions 7) Construction and Building materials shall be produced and/or manufactured locally. Use “Green Building Materials” such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled, and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way including low-volatile-organic-compound (VOC) materials. BO A During Construction C 2 8) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of: • Increased insulation. • Limit air leakage through the structure. • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances. • Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems . • Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements. • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED’s) for outdoor lighting. BO C During Construction A 4 237237 Page 11 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 9) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available or as required by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. BO A During Construction C 2 10) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. CE A Review of Plans C 2 Section 8 – Hazards and Waste Materials 1) Prior to grading and/or demolition activities at the site, the applicant shall hire qualitied/specialized grading and demolition contractors that will be responsible for completing the recommendations made in the project’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: • Although no septic systems were observed on site, should any be encountered during demolition and/or grading, septic tanks shall be properly removed when the buildings are BO B/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 238238 Page 12 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance razed, along with any visually impacted soils. • Stained soil observed during the Phase I ESA, or that may be encountered during grading shall be properly excavated and disposed of. • Numerous containers of hazardous substances/petroleum products that were observed on site, and any other containers encountered during demolition or grading shall be removed and disposed. • The approximately 10 cubic yards of soil dumped at 8738 e 9th Street shall be excavated and removed from the site during clearing/grading. • Conduct an asbestos survey prior to demolition activities that may disturb ACMs. Should ACMs be discovered specific work practices must be implemented when handling construction materials and debris that contain asbestos and/or lead- containing materials per OSHA requirements. • Prior to demolition of buildings the property owner shall consult with a certified Lead Risk Assessor to determine options for control of possible lead-based paint hazards. Should it be determined that LBPs are present in the buildings, the qualified contractor hired to demolish the buildings that may contain LBPs shall comply with all requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62. 2) Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for any building where the tenant may use, store and dispose of hazardous materials, the tenant shall prepare and submit a Hazardous BO/FC D Request for Occupancy D 3/5 239239 Page 13 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and, if a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (generally associated with manufacturing) to the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division for review and approval. The plan must also be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department. The plan(s) shall describe equipment, workforce, procedures, and training to prevent, control, and provide adequate countermeasures to prevent release of hazardous substances. 3) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), which prevents the accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances. It does so by requiring stationary sources using hazardous materials that exceed a threshold quantity to develop and submit a Risk Management Plan that addresses the potential impacts of accidental hazardous materials releases and that includes measures to reduce hazards through prevention, response, and remediation measures. BO/FC B Review of Plans D 2 240240 Page 14 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 4) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, which provides guidelines for the proper removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials. In accordance with Rule 1403, structures that may contain asbestos are required to be subject to an asbestos survey by a Certified Asbestos Consultant (certified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA]) to identify building materials that contain asbestos. Asbestos removal should include prior notification to SCAQMD, and compliance with removal procedures and time schedules; asbestos handling and clean-up procedures; and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements under this rule. BO/FC B Review of Plans D 2 5) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1532.1), which requires removal of lead-based paint or other materials containing lead to be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California Department of Health Services. All demolition that could result in the release of lead must be conducted to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. BO/FC B Review of Plans D 2 241241 Page 15 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 6) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Health and Safety Code (Sections 39650 et seq.) and the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1529), which prohibit emissions of asbestos from asbestos-related demolition or construction activities; require medical examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities that could disturb asbestos; specify precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers; and require notice to Federal and local government agencies prior to beginning renovation or demolition that could disturb asbestos. The standards were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. BO/FC B Review of Plans D 2 7) Future development and redevelopment shall comply with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), which requires notification the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be notified of any project that may encroach upon established navigable airspace. FAA notification, review, and approval are required for any construction or alteration of a temporary or permanent structure, equipment, highway, railroad, roadway, or natural growth that extends into an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway that is 3,200 feet or longer. Note: the measure has been modified from the condition to focus specifically on that requirement that applies to the project site. PD A Review of Applications for Projects D Application Will Not Be Approved 8) All future roadway improvements shall comply with the City’s Roadway Functional Design CE A Review of Street Improvement Plans D Design Will Not Be Approved 242242 Page 16 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Guidelines, which include the number of lanes, median improvements, access restrictions, intersection spacing, curbside parking, g, required rights-of-way, and easement access based on the roadway designation. Closely related to roadway design would be the provision of adequate line of sight, in accordance with the City’s Intersection Line of Sight design guidelines and General Design Guidelines that address points of access, reduction of conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, minimal impacts on adjacent properties, adequate maneuvering areas, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and interconnected public and private sidewalks. Roadway improvement plans shall show com pliance with these standards, as reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Department during the plan check process. 9) Future development shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures consistent with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable vegetation, and climate of the proposed development site. The Plan must also address water supply, access, building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel modification areas are imposed on new developments. FC A 10) The State Board of Forestry and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) shall continue to implement the California Fire Plan for all Future development, redevelopment, and existing development within the City of Rancho FC E While Operating or Active D 243243 Page 17 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Cucamonga or the City’s Sphere of Influence, to reduce wildland fire hazards at the San Bernardino National Forest and foothills in Rancho Cucamonga. Section 9 – Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activities 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a SWPPP specifically identifying BMPs that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 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. BO B/C/D/ Review of Plans A/C 2/4 3) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, and included with the project’s 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. The 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 BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 244244 Page 18 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance 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 an remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 4) 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, non-structural and Low Impact Development BMPs consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements. BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 5) 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. BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 Section 10 – Land Use and Planning 1) Section 11 – Mineral Resources 1) Section 12 – Noise Construction 1) If receiver locations R1, R4, and R5 represent owned and/or occupied noise-PD/BO B Review of Plans C/A 4 245245 Page 19 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance sensitive uses at the time of project construction, the following mitigation measures are required to reduce the construction noise and vibration level impacts: • Large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 100 feet of owned and occupied noise-sensitive residential homes, as shown on Figure 12, represented by receiver locations R1, R4, and R5, during Project construction activities. Instead, small rubber-tired or alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects. • Construct the minimum 8-foot high noise barrier as previously described to reduce project operational noise levels at the northern project site boundary, shown on Figure 12, prior to the start of Project construction activities. • If it is not feasible to construct the minimum 8-foot high noise barrier at the norther Project site boundary prior to project construction, an equivalent, minimum 8-foot high temporary construction noise barrier is required at the project’s northern site boundary adjacent to the receiver location R1, for the duration of project construction activities. The noise control barriers must present a solid face from top to bottom. The noise control barrier must meet the minimum height and be constructed as follows: • The barrier shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. The noise barrier may be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic 246246 Page 20 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equtemporary fence posts; • The noise barriers must be maintained and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. • The noise control barriers and associated elements shall be completely removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. Other measures 2) Construction or grading (including 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. 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. BO C During Construction A 4 3) Compliance with Development Code Section 17.6.05(D)(4) regarding construction noise as follows: • Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any PD C During Construction A 4 247247 Page 21 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: • When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. • When adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do no exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. Operation If receiver location R1 represents owned and/or occupied noise-sensitive uses at the time of Project operation, the following noise barrier is required to reduce the operational noise level impacts (see Figure 16): • A minimum 8 foot high noise barrier at the northern Project site boundary is required as shown on Exhibit ES-A. The barrier shall provide a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line- of-sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways, or a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. (2) The barriers shall consist of a solid face PD B During Review of Plans C 2 248248 Page 22 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. The noise barrier shall be constructed using the following materials: Masonry block ; Earthen berm; Or any combination of construction materials capable of the minimum weight of 4 pounds per square foot or a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. Section 13 – Population and Housing 1) Section 14 – Public Services 1) Section 15 - Recreation 1) Section 16 – Transportation/Traffic 1) Prior to occupancy of the first building, the westbound receiving lane shall be widened to include the existing left turn lane. CE D Prior to Occupancy A/C 3/5 2) Prior to occupancy of the first building, the eastbound approach of the intersection shall be restriped to provide one eastbound through-left turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane. CE D Prior to Occupancy A/C 3/5 3) Prior to occupancy of the first building, the applicant shall install signage that restricts trucks from turning right. A combination of R3-1 and R20D-2 (CA) with restrictions on 4 or more axles is recommended. CE D Prior to Occupancy A/C 3/5 249249 Page 23 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Section 17 – Tribal Cultural Resources 1) Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant: The project applicant shall retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC’s Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nations as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on- site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. PD B During Review of Plans C/D 2 2) Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be PD/BO C During Construction A 4 250250 Page 24 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in 251251 Page 25 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance the area for educational purposes. 3) Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. PD/BO C During Construction A 4 4) Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discovery, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant will immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). PD/BO C During Construction A 4 5) Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of PD/BO C During Construction A 4 252252 Page 26 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the following treatment measures shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. 6) Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24- hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at PD/BO C During Construction A 4 253253 Page 27 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any specific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. 7) Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern PD C During Construction A 4 254254 Page 28 of 28 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. Section 18 – Utility and Service Systems 1) Section 19 – Mandatory Findings of Significance 1) Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD - Planning Director or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/ Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 7 - Citation 255255 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 –PHELAN DEVELOPMENT - A request to develop an 11.73 acre site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 9th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 9th Street – APN: 0207-262-28, -35, -36, -41, and - 42. Related file: Minor Exception DRC2019-00205. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019- 00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT - A request to reduce the required 45’ setback adjacent to residential to 41’ in conjunction with a proposal to develop the site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 9th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 9th Street – APN: 0207-262-28, -35, -36, -41, and -42. Related file: Design Review DRC2018-00912. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission public hearing for Design Review DRC2018- 00912 and Minor Exception DRC2019-00205 be Continued to the Planning Commission January 22, 2020. PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: The subject applications were included in the agenda of items that were to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing that was scheduled for January 8, 2020. Thirty (30) days in advance of the public hearing, the City advertises the public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the newspaper, posted notices on the project site, and mailed notices to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Due to an error, the site was not posted and the notices were not mailed. As a result, the City cannot conduct the public hearing for the project on January 8, 2020 as originally scheduled. There is also an environmental assessment associated with the project and a minimum 30-day notification period is required prior to the public hearing. The City will re-notice the public hearing DATE: January 8, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP Planning Director INITIATED BY: Mike Smith, Principal Planner Exhibit L 256 256 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DRC2018-00912 AND ME DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 8, 2020 Page 2 and conduct it on January 22, 2020). Therefore, Staff is requesting a Continuance of the advertised public hearing to January 22, 2020. 257 257 SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: January 7, 2020 Michael.Smith@CityofRC.us Mike Smith, Project Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Industrial Project – Phelan (DRC2018-00912) South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final MND. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to construct three buildings totaling 510,847 square feet of non-refrigerated office/warehouse uses, including approximately 233,728 square feet for warehouse/distribution uses on 11.73 acres (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located on t he northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to occur over eight months and will include 86 truck trips per day once operational1. Based on reviews of Figure 5: Site Plan Schematics in the MND and the Project Description, each building is anticipated to have three to five dock doors that will face 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue to the south and east of the Proposed Project, respectively2. Upon reviews of Figure 2: Site Location in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that existing residential uses are located immediately east of the Proposed Project3. The Proposed Project is anticipated to be operational by fall 20204. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Analyses In the Air Quality Analysis Section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to South Coast AQMD’s recommended regional CEQA air quality significance thresholds. Based on the analysis, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s regional construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than significant5. The Lead Agency found the site preparation phase during construction would result in localized air quality impacts from PM10 and PM2.5 emissions at 10.88 pounds per day (lbs/day) and 6.23 lbs/day6, respectively, which were slightly below South Coast AQMD’s localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 at 11 lbs/day and 7 lbs/day, respectively. No air quality mitigation measures were included7. The Lead Agency also performed a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) analysis and found that the maximum incremental cancer risks for residents and workers would be 1.15 in one million and 0.19 in one million, respectively, both of which are below South Coast AQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk8. Lastly, a Phase I Environmental Site 1 MND. Page 36. 2 Ibid. Page 14, 103. 3 Ibid. Page 9. 4 Ibid. Page 2. 5 Ibid. Page 39. 6 Ibid. Page 41. 7 Ibid. Page 42. 8 Ibid. Appendix C: Health Risk Assessment. Page 2 1 2 Exhibit M 258 258 Mike Smith January 7, 2020 2 Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Proposed Project9, which stated that “containers of hazardous substances/petroleum products were identified at the property”10. South Coast AQMD Staff’s General Comments To further reduce exposures of sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality impacts, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate air quality mitigation measures in the Final MND. Please see the attachment for more information. The attachment also includes South Coast AQMD rules which the Lead Agency should discuss them in the Final MND. Conclusion Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, responses should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. Further, when the Lead Agency makes the finding that the additional recommended mitigation measures are not feasible, the Lead Agency should describe the specific reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting them in the Final MND (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and 15074.1). South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Margaret Isied, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at misied@aqmd.gov or (909) 396-2543, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment LS:MI SBC191205-03 Control Number 9 Ibid. Appendix J: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). 10 MND. Page 85. 2 con't 3 4 259 259 Mike Smith January 7, 2020 3 ATTACHMENT Recommended Mitigation Measures for Construction Air Quality Impacts from Particulate Matter 1. As stated above, the Proposed Project’s localized construction PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during the site preparation phase would be 10.88 lbs/day and 6.39 lbs/day, respectively, which were slightly below South Coast AQMD air quality CEQA significance thresholds of 11 lbs/day and 7 lbs/day for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, respectively. Since existing residential uses are located immediately east of the Proposed Project, to reduce their exposures to localized air quality impacts during construction, particularly from PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Final MND. For more information on potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency, please visit South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook website11. a) Require construction equipment that meets U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards. To ensure that Tier 4 Final construction equipment or better would be used during the Proposed Project’s construction, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground disturbing and construction activities. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and California Air Resources Board (CARB) or South Coast AQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Additionally, the Lead Agency should require periodic reporting and provision of written construction documents by construction contractor(s) to ensure compliance, and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. In the event that construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. b) Maintain equipment maintenance records for the construction portion of the Proposed Project. All construction equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their construction contractor(s) should be made available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction. Recommended Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts 2. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse impacts. Due to close proximity to existing residences, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following operational air quality mitigation measures in the Final MND. Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts from Mobile Sources a) Require the use of zero-emission (ZE) or near zero-emission (NZE) on-road haul trucks during operation, such as trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional NOx 11 South Coast AQMD. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 260 260 Mike Smith January 7, 2020 4 emission standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). At a minimum, the Lead Agency may require that operators of heavy-duty trucks visiting the Proposed Project during operation commit to using 2010 model year or newer engines that meet CARB’s 2010 engine emission standards of 0.01 g/bhp-hr for particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks. When requiring ZE or NZE on-road haul trucks, the Lead Agency should include analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient power and supportive infrastructure available for ZE/NZE trucks in the Energy and Utilities and Service Syst ems Sections of the Final MND, where appropriate. b) To monitor and ensure ZE, NZE, or 2010 model year trucks are used at the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should require that operators maintain records of all trucks associated with the Proposed Project’s construction and make these records available to the Lead Agency upon request. The records will serve as evidence to prove that each truck called to the Proposed Project during construction meets the minimum 2010 model year engine emission standards. Alternatively, the Lead Agency should require periodic reporting and provision of written records by contractors and conduct regular inspections of the records to the maximum extent feasible and practicable. c) Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations (see the discussion below regarding EV charging stations). d) Trucks that can operate at least partially on electricity have the ability to substantially reduce the significant NOx impacts from this project. Further, trucks that run at least partially on electricity are projected to become available during the life of the project as discussed in the 2016 -2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS)12. It is important to make this electrical infrastructure available when the project is built so that it is ready when this technology becomes commercially available. The cost of installing electrical charging equipment onsite is significantly cheaper if completed when the project is built compared to retrofitting an existing building. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency require the Proposed Project and other plan areas that allow truck parking to be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for trucks to plug-in. Similar to the City of Los Angeles requirements for all new projects, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including for trucks) include EV charging stations13. Further, electrical hookups should be provided at the onsite truck stop for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. At a minimum, electrical panels should be appropriately sized to allow for future expanded use e) Limit the daily number of truck trips allowed at the Proposed Project to the level that was analyzed in the MND (e.g., 86 daily truck trips). If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated during operation than what were analyzed in the MND, the Lead Agency should commit to re- evaluating the Proposed Project’s air quality and health risks impacts through a CEQA process prior to allowing higher truck activity levels (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). f) Design the Proposed Project such that trucks visiting the Proposed Project utilize an entrance on Vineyard Avenue, North of 9th Street to avoid truck traffic traveling and passing through nearby existing residences. 12 Southern California Association of Governments. Accessed at: http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. 13 City of Los Angeles. Accessed at: http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/LADBS_Forms/Publications/LAGreenBuildingCodeOrdinance.pdf. 261 261 Mike Smith January 7, 2020 5 g) Design the Proposed Project such that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the Proposed Project site to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility and that truck traffic within the Proposed Project site is located away from the property line(s) closest to the sensitive receptors (e.g., residences). h) Establish area(s) within the Proposed Project site for repair needs and ensure that these designated areas are away from sensitive receptors (e.g., residences). Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts from Area Sources i) Maximize the use of solar energy including solar panels. Installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Proposed Project site to generate solar energy for the facility and/or EV charging stations. j) Require the use of electric landscaping equipment, such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers. k) Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. l) Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. m) Use light colored paving and roofing materials. n) Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. South Coast AQMD Rules 3. Disturbing and excavated soils that may contain hydrocarbons or toxic air contaminants are subject to the requirements of South Coast AQMD Rule 1166 – Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil14, and Rule 1466 – Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Air Contaminants15. Since the containers of petroleum products and hazardous substances were identified at the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should include a discussion on South Coast AQMD Rules 1166 and 1466 in the Air Quality Section of the Final MND. 14 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1166 – Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule book/reg-xi/rule-1166.pdf. 15 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1466 – control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Air Contaminants. Accessed at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1466.pdf. 262 262 Responses to Comments City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Initial Study/MND Page 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, January 7, 2020 Comment 1 SCAQMD Staff provided their description of the project and noted that there are existing residential uses immediately east of the project site. Response 1 The residential uses on the east side of the project site are a part of the proposed project and will be demolished and replaced with the proposed warehouses. The residences are currently unoccupied. However, there are two townhouse neighborhoods adjacent to the west of the project site. Potential air quality impacts on these residences were identified as sensitive receptors on Page 35 of the Initial Study. Table 11, Localized Significance Summary of Construction without Mitigation, shows that localized construction emissions at the nearest sensitive receptor location would not exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of criteria pollutants; without mitigation. Likewise, as shown on Table 12, Localized Significance Summary of Operations without Mitigation, operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptor. Comment 2 Although there was not a direct question or comment here, SCAQMD Staff described the Initial Study’s environmental analysis of Air Quality and Health Risk and indicated that construction emissions were below significance thresholds and no air quality mitigation measures were included. The comment also included a reference to the project’s Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) findings that there were hazardous substances/petroleum products identified on the property. Regarding the Initial Study finding that construction emissions were below significance thresholds and no air quality mitigation measures were included, CEQA does not require the implementation of mitigation measures for impacts that are found to be less than significant. However, it should be noted that although no mitigation measures were identified for construction emissions, project contractors are required to comply with SCAQMD Rules including Rule 403 to control fugitive dust. Regarding site conditions identified in the ESA, these were addressed in Section 8 of the Initial Study, and a series of mitigation measures for site cleanup and disposal were identified. Comment 3 SCAQMD Staff has recommended that although emissions of criteria pollutants during construction and operation were found to be less than significant, Exhibit N 263 263 Responses to Comments City of Rancho Cucamonga Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Initial Study/MND Page 2 implementation of a set of measures provided in an attachment to the letter is recommended. Response 3 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that where an impact is found to be significant, measures must be implemented to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. So if project construction or operation generates emissions that are less than the threshold, then the impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. However, as discussed above in Response 2, it should be noted that although no mitigation measures were identified for construction emissions, project contractors are required to comply with SCAQMD Rules including Rule 403 to control fugitive dust. Comment 4 The comment summarizes information from CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 15074 regarding the steps a lead agency must take prior to approving a project. Response 4 The City of Rancho Cucamonga in its role as the CEQA lead agency determined that an Initial Study should be prepared for the proposed project. The Initial Study included the preparation of special studies for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk Assessment and a Phase I ESA, along with other relevant studies. The findings and recommendations of these studies were incorporated into the Initial Studies, and where impacts were determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures were identified to be implemented during construction or long-term operation of the project. These measures were based on the findings of the relevant reports prepared by experts. Measures from the Initial Study have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that must be implemented. Monitoring will be done through a combination of reporting by the project proponent, project contractors or project monitors, and by periodic inspections by City staff as outlined in the MMRP 264 264 RESOLUTION NO.20-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912, A REQUEST TO DEVELOP 11.73 ACRE SITE WITH THREE (4) INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING 236,534 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 9TH STREET, WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AT 8768 9TH STREET - APN: 0207-262-28, -35, -36, -41, and - 42. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Phelan Development, filed an application for Design Review DRC2018- 00912, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 8, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application and due to a noticing error, Continue said hearing to January 22, 2020. 3. On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 8, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an irregularly shaped project site that consists of five (5) parcels located at the north side of 9th Street about 550 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. The subject parcels have a combined area of 11.73 acres with overall maximum dimensions of about 640 feet (east-west) and about 885 feet (north-south); and b. The site is partially developed with several industrial buildings of various sizes but is otherwise vacant. There are also paved areas for parking and driveways, and landscaping that varies in type and condition. The site has a street frontage along 9th Street of about 640 feet. The property and buildings are all vacant; and c. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: 265 265 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.20-03 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Mostly Vacant with Limited Development General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District North Single Family Residences General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Apartment Complex Medium Residential Medium Residential (M) District South Vacant General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Office Building Industrial Development East Industrial Offices General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Self-Storage Facility West Apartment Complex Medium Residential Medium Residential (M) District Condominium Complex * - legal, non-conforming, i.e. residences within an industrial zone d. The application is a request to construct three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings with a combined floor area of 236,534 square feet. Individually, the floor area of each building is 50,771 square feet, 85,209 square feet, and 100,554 square feet (Buildings A, B, and C, respectively); and e. The technical standards that apply to the project, and the technical details of the project as proposed are as follows: Technical Standard Required Proposed Building Height Max. 75’ 42’-6” Floor Area Ratio 50-60% 46.3% Front Building Setback* Min. 25’ 95’ Side Building Setback Min. 5’ Min. 5’ Rear Building Setback Min. 0’ Min. 5’ Industrial Land Use Setback (Abutting a Residential Property Line) Min. 45’ 41’ Landscape Percentage Min. 10% 28.6% * - measured from the curb at the street f. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, and front/rear setbacks with the exception of the required building setback when an industrial project is adjacent to a residential district. The required setback in such circumstances is 45 feet. To allow one of the buildings to have a setback of 41 feet, the applicant has applied for a Minor Exception (DRC2019-00205); and g. The proposed buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of five colors. The buildings will have vertical formlined concrete panels at various locations. An additional primary material will be aluminum canopies while a secondary material will be glass 266 266 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.20-03 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 3 panels. In the office areas, there are generous amounts of glass and formlined panels. In addition, the height of the parapets will higher than elsewhere on the buildings and will be “capped” with a metal cornice.; and h. There will be two points of vehicular access via two driveways located on 9th Street; and i. Per Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, the parking requirement is based on the proposed mix of office and warehouse floor areas in the building. The project is required to have 96 vehicle parking spaces as shown in the table below: Type of Use Floor Area (Square Feet) Parking Ratio Number of Spaces Required Number of Spaces Proposed Proposed Buildings (overall) 236,534 - - - Building A 50,771 - - - Office 2,500 1/250 10 see below Warehouse1 48,271 varies2 32 see below Building B 85,209 - - - Office 5,000 1/250 20 see below Warehouse1 80,209 varies2 40 see below Building C 100,554 - - - Office 5,000 1/250 20 see below Warehouse1 95,554 varies2 44 see below Total Required/Total Provided: 166/1762 1 - For warehouse uses, the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; and 1 space per 4,000 square feet for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet; 2 - The trailer parking requirement is calculated separately from the standard parking requirement and is based on a ratio of one stall per dock door. Overall, twenty-three (23) spaces are required and twenty-three (23) spaces are proposed. j. The project was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee on October 15, 2019; and k. The project was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Technical Review Committee on October 15, 2019; and l. As required by Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), the City submitted Tribal Consultation Requests to the six (6) Tribal Governments: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians following a completeness determination for Design Review DRC2018- 00912. The notices were mailed on October 1, 2019 and provided for a 30-day comment period ending on November 1, 2019. During the comment period, Staff received responses from two (2) Tribal Governments requesting 267 267 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.20-03 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 4 consultation and/or additional information about the project: San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. After the completion of the required consultations, both governments provided mitigation measures to protect their cultural resources. Those mitigation measures were included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Should any undocumented archaeological or cultural resources be discovered during grading activities, adherence to the mitigation measures will ensure that all impacts will be less than significant. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The site is located within the General Industrial (GI) District, which permits a range of industrial activities. The project consists of three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet. All site improvements, including parking and landscaped areas, are designed to be consistent with the General Industrial (GI) District. 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. The Development Code designates the project site as General Industrial (GI) District. The proposed industrial/warehouse buildings are consistent with the land use intent of the General Industrial (GI) District. The zoning of the adjacent sites to the south, north, and east of the property are also within the General Industrial (GI) District and are (or will be) developed with compatible buildings and uses. The properties to the west are developed with residences (condominiums and apartments) and are within the Medium (M) Residential District. c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The buildings are designed for industrial/warehouse operations. The buildings meet all setbacks (with exception of the rear building setbacks for Building B, subject to approval of Minor Exception DRC2019-00205), floor area, height, and landscaping requirements. The buildings have been designed to meet the City’s architectural standards. The project meets the minimum parking, loading, and access requirements. 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. The site is surrounded by industrial development of a similar scale and intensity to the east and south. Potential uses/operations within the proposed buildings and on the project site are anticipated to comply with the performance standards described in the Development Code relating to, for example, noise, lighting, and odors. 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 268 268 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.20-03 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 5 CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project was prepared. Based on the findings contained in that IS, it was 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 (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. During the 30-day review public comment period, Staff received a comment letter from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on January 7, 2020. The letter commented on the applicant’s analysis of the air quality impacts and included recommended mitigation measures. The applicant’s environmental consultant provided a response to those comments which were, in turn, submitted to the SCAQMD. No follow-up comments were received from SCAQMD. Staff has reviewed the comments from SCAQMD, and the applicant’s consultant’s responses to them, and has concluded that no revisions to, and/or recirculation of, the IS/MND is required. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission’s decision is based is the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the 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 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 269 269 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.20-03 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 6 BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January 2020, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 270 270 RESOLUTION NO.20-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 45-FOOT SETBACK ADJACENT OT RESIDENTIAL RELATED TO A PROJECT OF THREE (3) INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING 236,534 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 9TH STREET, WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AT 8768 9TH STREET - APN: 0207-262-28, -35, -36, -41, and -42. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Phelan Development, filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2019-00205, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 8, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and due to a noticing error, Continue said hearing to January 22, 2020. 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 the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 8, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an irregularly shaped project site that consists of five (5) parcels located at the north side of 9th Street about 550 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. The subject parcels have a combined area of 11.73 acres with overall maximum dimensions of about 640 feet (east-west) and about 885 feet (north-south); and b. The site is partially developed with several industrial buildings of various sizes but is otherwise vacant. There are also paved areas for parking and driveways, and landscaping that varies in type and condition. The site has a street frontage along 9th Street of about 640 feet. The property and buildings are all vacant; and c. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: 271 271 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Mostly Vacant with Limited Development General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District North Single Family Residences General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Apartment Complex Medium Residential Medium Residential (M) District South Vacant General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Office Building Industrial Development East Industrial Offices General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Self-Storage Facility West Apartment Complex Medium Residential Medium Residential (M) District Condominium Complex * - legal, non-conforming, i.e. residences within an industrial zone d. Associated with this application is Design Review DRC2018-00912, a request for the construction of three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet; and e. The application is a request for a reduction in the required minimum building setback. Per Table 17.36.040-1 of the Development Code, the minimum side and rear setbacks (measured from the building wall to the property line) in all industrial districts is 5 feet (side) and zero feet (rear) except when the project site is immediately adjacent to a residential district, i.e. zone. In such circumstances, the minimum setback is required to be 45 feet (between the building and the property line between and adjacent residential district, where applicable). The project contemplates a reduction in the rear setback to 41 feet. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the reduction to allow part of the northwest corner of one the buildings of the project to encroach 4 feet into this setback; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The minor exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The General Plan land use designation of the project site is General Industrial. The industrial warehouse/logistics project is consistent with the other industrial uses in the area and therefore consistent with the intent of the General Park designation of the General Plan. The General Plan does not establish a procedure for reducing setback requirements but recognizes the Development Code as the governing document for technical standards for building setback. The Development Code permits a reduction of up to 10% in the setback requirement. The proposed Minor Exception is for a reduction of 4 feet (8.9%). Therefore, the proposed setback reduction request is consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No specific plan nor development agreement applies to this project. b. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed project is a set of industrial warehouse/logistics buildings with a 272 272 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 3 combined floor area of 236,534 square feet for office and warehousing. It is similar with the other industrial uses and buildings in the general area. Per Table 17.36.040-1 of the Development Code, the minimum special building setback in all industrial districts when adjacent to a residential district is 45 feet (measured from the building wall to the property line). The proposed Minor Exception is for a reduction of 4 feet (8.9%). The reduction in the setback is for only for the northwest corner of Building B. The remainder of Building B, and the other two buildings proposed with this project, will be in compliance with the subject setback requirement. Furthermore, the physical separation between Building B and the nearest residential structure is about 115 feet. Therefore, the reduction in the setback requirement will not have an impact on the surrounding area and/or uses and the project will be compatible with the existing land uses. c. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. The project site has an irregularly shaped perimeter along its west side. This results in a condition where many of the required site improvements for the project such as fire access lanes, parking, and landscaping are in unusual locations or have unusual layouts throughout the site which, in turn, affects the plotting of a building. In this case, Building B is at the most logical location on the site relative to above-noted improvements and Buildings A and C. Also, the part of the building that encroaches into the subject setback is minor. It consists of 110 feet (east-west horizontal dimension) of building wall plane and 440 square feet (a rectangular floor area of 4 feet x 110 feet). Furthermore, if the location of the building wall plane and corresponding floor plan was revised to comply with the subject setback requirement, it would result in operating inefficiencies for future potential tenants. Therefore, the reduction in the setback requirement accommodates unique site conditions. d. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The reduction in the setback requirement will not be a grant of special privilege as other applicants developing industrial project on sites with similar physical constraints could request a Minor Exception for consideration by the City. The reduction in the setback is for only 110 feet (east-west horizontal dimension) of building wall plane and 440 square feet (a rectangular floor area of 4 feet x 110 feet). This is negligible as the affected building is 466 feet long (east- west horizontal dimension) and has a floor area of 85,209 square feet. The remainder of the affected building and the other buildings proposed for the project will be at, or exceed, the required setback from the west property line. Therefore, the reduction in the building setback will not be detrimental to 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 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, an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project was prepared. Based on the findings contained in that IS, it was determined that, with the imposition 273 273 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 4 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 (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. During the 30-day review public comment period, Staff received a comment letter from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on January 7, 2020. The letter commented on the applicant’s analysis of the air quality impacts and included recommended mitigation measures. The applicant’s environmental consultant provided a response to those comments which were, in turn, submitted to the SCAQMD. No follow-up comments were received from SCAQMD. Staff has reviewed the comments from SCAQMD, and the applicant’s consultant’s responses to them, and has concluded that no revisions to, and/or recirculation of, the IS/MND is required. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission’s decision is based is the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the 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 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 274 274 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205 – PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 5 BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January 2020, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 275 275 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 1. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,404.75. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 3. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 4. This project is subject to the public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. No final approval, such as a final inspection or a certificate of occupancy, for any development project subject to this chapter shall be granted or issued unless and until the requirements of this chapter have been met. In consideration of any phasing plan or project completion schedule, the city may accept bonds or other surety to assist in the completion of the project, provided they are in a form and manner acceptable to the planning director and city attorney. 5. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 6. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 1/15/2020 276 276 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 7. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 8. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 9. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10. A minimum of 20 percent of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30 percent within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 11. A minimum of trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the project: percent - 48-inch box or larger percent - 36-inch box or larger, percent - 24- inch box or larger, percent - 15-gallon, and percent - 5 gallon. 12. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 13. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 14. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 16. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 277 277 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 18. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 19. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 20. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 21. 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. 22. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 23. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Services Department and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 24. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 25. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations, the ____________________ Specific Plan, Master Plan and the Community Plan _______________ . 26. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 27. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 278 278 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 28. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 29. 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. 30. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 31. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter. 32. 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. 33. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 34. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 279 279 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Underground 3 Distribution Poles on Frontage along 9th Street Per Resolution No. 87-96: All developments, except those contained in section 7 and others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows: 1. Lines on the project side of the street. a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developers expense. b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in-lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. c. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on opposite sides of the street. 2. Lines on the opposite of the street from the project: The Developer shall pay a fee to the City for one-half the amount per Section 6. 3. Lines on both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with Section 1 above and be eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one-half the total cost of undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street. 2. Streetlights: Install 2 new City owned (LS-2) streetlight along the project boundary frontage on 9th Street to replace the distribution Streetlight arm being undergrounded. Coordinate with SCE Planning to place a meterless pedestal as the Point of Demarcation for service connection in the ROW. 3. Fiber Optics: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require 1-4” UG Fiber Optic conduit on the north side of 9th Street along the project boundary. The end runs will require a 3’x4’x3’ pullbox on each end. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 280 280 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Complete the sidewalk improvements to on the north side of 9th Street to join with the sidewalk on the east side of the flood control channel. The full extent of improvements is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The developer may request a reimbursement to recover the City adopted cost for public improvements for the sidewalk from the City. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 5. Provide truck turning movement analysis for the intersection of Vineyard Ave and 9th St using the dimensions of the California Legal Design Vehicle. Please include any mitigation as required to allow for truck turning movements made by anticipated trips generated from the project including, but not limited to access ramp improvements to the ultimate condition at the South West corner, joining of new access ramp to existing curb and sidewalk on Vineyard Ave., asphalt taper on the South side of 9th St. from the existing curb to the new access ramp, relocation of any existing utility and traffic signal equipment as needed, restriping of each approach of the intersection as needed to facilitate movements of a California Legal Design Vehicle. The improvement plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. The developer may request a reimbursement to recover cost for public improvements from the City. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 6. Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 33' total feet on 9th Street 7. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 8. A permit(s) from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. 9. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of Building Permits. 10. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 281 281 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 11. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to Building Permit issuance if no map is involved. 12. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 13. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 14. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans.” If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. 15. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name: 9th Street Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees 16. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 282 282 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 17. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 283 283 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name(s): 9th Street Botanical Name: Quercus Ilex Common Name: Holly Oak Min. Grow Space: 40-feet on center Spacing: 40' on center Size: 15 gal. minimum Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 19. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 20. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of Building Permits: 9th Street. 21. All public improvements (drainage facilities, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. 22. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 23. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.24. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 25. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 284 284 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 26. Prior to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District among the newly created parcels. 27. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.28. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 29. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. 30. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: 9th Street. 31. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Commercial/Industrial Gates Gates installed across a fire lane are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 1. Storm Water Retention Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in the engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road(s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road(s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings. 2. Roof Access Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 3. Identification of Access Doors Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 4. Commercial Building Signage Building street address signage is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 5. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 285 285 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Knox Box Knox Box(es) is/are required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 6. Fire Alarm and Monitoring Systems Required fire alarm systems and fire sprinkler monitoring systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 7. High Piled Combustible Storage – General High piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this standard in its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 8. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including T-24 energy calculation, and structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for the new structures. Disabled access improvements to the site and buildings must be provided in accordance to the State of CA published thresholds at the time of plan check submittal. Accessible access to the public way is required for all 3 buildings. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plan shall show that along the northerly property line where a block wall is proposed, that the current developed 100-year storm event from the northerly upstream property owner can pass through the proposed block wall. Alternatively the water may be collected and drained directly to the adjacent San Bernardino County Flood Control Channel. The grading plan shall demonstrate that upstream flooding will not occur on the northerly adjacent property. 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 286 286 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”. 10. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 7 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 13. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department. 14. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 15. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 16. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 287 287 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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 issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and the permitted grading plan set for non-residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2. 18. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way (9th Street) must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Services Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans. 19. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). This shall be shown in the typical sections of the grading and drainage plan. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 21. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 22. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 288 288 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 23. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall demonstrate that the storm water run-off will not adversely affect the downstream properties and that the water may legally discharge to the downstream properties. The engineer of record shall show on the final permitted grading and drainage plan one (1) or more of the following items are met: a) There is sufficient downstream capacity to accept the proposed storm water flows and that the downstream property owner have provided permission to accept the upstream storm water flows; b) a legal document/entity exists allowing developed storm water flows to be discharged to the property lower in elevation; c) a storm drain system to safely convey the storm water flows to a public storm drain system without causing flooding to adjacent property(ies). 25. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 26. San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) shall approve all plans that impact their easement, including utilities, storm drain, slopes, and street trees and landscaping prior to issuance of a grading permit. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring SBCFCD Operations and Maintenance division to be notified two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of their right of way. 27. A permit shall be obtained from San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) for any work within their right-of-way, including drainage and grading prior to issuance of a grading permit. 28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written comments from San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) regarding site design restrictions within their easement and provide a copy of said comments to the Engineering Services Department for review. 29. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 30. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 31. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 32. www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 289 289 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 33. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. 34. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 35. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 36. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 37. The Site and Drainage Plan in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall show the locations of all roof downspout drains. if required for storm water quality purposes, the downspouts shall include filters. 38. The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document. 39. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 290 290 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan. 40. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”. 41. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”. 42. The subject project, shall accept all existing off-site storm water drainage flows and safely convey those flows through or around the project site. If existing off-site storm water drainage flows mix with any on-site storm water drainage flows, then the off-site storm water drainage flows shall be treated with the on-site storm water drainage flows for storm water quality purposes, prior to discharging the storm water drainage flows from the project site. 43. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 44. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document. 45. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 291 291 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. 46. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non-residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3. 47. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 292 292 Project #: DRC2018-00912 DRC2019-00329 Project Name: EDR - 9th & Vineyard Location: 8768 9TH ST - 020726241-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed “Acceptable”. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, or his designee. 48. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 18Printed: 1/15/2020 293 293 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND - A request for site plan and architectural review of 6 single-family residences on 3.19 acres of land within the Very Low (VL) Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane; APNs: 1061-691-22 through 27. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review DRC2019-00502 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is a 4.75-acre 7-lot subdivision located at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane. The site is a rectangular lot measuring approximately 315 feet in width (from north to south), and 675 feet in length (from east to west). The existing grade is approximately 1,390 feet along the north property line and 1,370 along the south property line, for a total grade change of approximately 20 feet. The project site is improved with an existing single-family residence located on a separate lot at the northwest corner of the project site, now referred to as Lot 1. Lot 1 measures approximately 172 feet in width and 290 feet in length. The remainder of the site includes 6 vacant lots, measuring approximately 3.19 acres, consisting primarily of non- native vegetation and groundcover. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Single-family residence/Vacant Very Low Residential Very Low (VL) Residential District North Single-family residences Very Low Residential Very Low (VL) Residential District South Single-family residences Very Low Residential Very Low (VL) Residential District DATE: January 22, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Sean McPherson, AICP, Senior Planner Dat Tran, Assistant Planner 294 294 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND January 22, 2020 Page 2 West Single-family residences Very Low Residential Very Low (VL) Residential District East Floyd M. Stork Elementary School Schools Very Low (VL) Residential District BACKGROUND: On January 28, 2015, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18961 (Exhibit G), for the subdivision of the project site into 7 single-family lots. At the time of the review and approval of SUBTT18961, the site was already improved with an existing single-family residence located at the northwest corner of the site (future Lot 1). The applicant for the tentative tract map, Mr. Romy Octa, retained ownership of Lot 1. The remainder of the tract (Lots 2-7) was sold off to GCA Land for future development. The Final Map for the subdivision was recorded on October 22, 2018. The subject application was originally scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 8, 2020. However, due to a noticing error, the Planning Commission voted to continue this item to the January 22, 2020 public hearing. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, GCA Land, is proposing to construct 6 single-family residences. The residences will be located on lots with sizes ranging between 20,034 to 27,319 square feet. Five of the 6 lots (Lots 3-7), are located around a proposed private street and cul-de-sac, Brittany Court. Access to these lots are provided via onsite driveways extending to the cul-de- sac. The remaining lot (Lot 2) provides access directly from Sapphire Street. Two separate floor plans are proposed, each with two elevations. Floor Plan #1 represents the four single-story homes on Lots 2,3,5 and 7, and provides 3,610 square feet of living space, a 696 square foot garage, an 88 square foot porch and a 281 square foot California room. Floor Plan #2 represents the two two-story homes on Lots 4 and 6 and includes 4,058 square feet of living space, a 633 square foot garage, an 85 square foot porch and a 181 square foot California room. The proposed floor plans comply with the City’s Development Code standard requiring 25 percent of residential developments consisting of four or more units to be single-story units. The project site also complies with all applicable Development Standards as indicated in the table below: Development Standard Height Lot Coverage Complies? Requirements Max. 35 feet Max. 25% - Lot 1 Existing Home; Not a Part of Project Site Lot 2 17 feet 21% YES Lot 3 17 feet 21% YES Lot 4 29 feet 13% YES 295 295 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND January 22, 2020 Page 3 Lot 5 17 feet 17% YES Lot 6 29 feet 12% YES Lot 7 17 feet 19% YES * Applies to Lots 2 and 3. * Applies to Lots 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. All proposed residences are designed with architecturally consistent design elements that extend throughout all elevations (360-degree architecture). Architectural articulation and breaks in the wall planes are used throughout the façade of each residence to break up each building’s massing. Decorative windows and shutters, wood rafters, light fixtures and air vents are also provided to limit the amount of blank façade along wall planes. Residences consists primarily of stucco-coated exterior walls and tile roofing. Alternative material finishes, such as brick, stacked stone, or board and batten, are provided on each home to emphasize and vary the various architectural styles. The homes are also carefully oriented onsite to create variation in elevations as visible from the public right-of-way. For example, of the five homes located around the Brittany Court cul-de-sac, four of the homes consist of different elevation styles. The fifth home consist of a similar elevation style as one of the other four homes but is rotated 90 degrees. As a result, the fifth home projects a different elevation (side elevation) onto Brittany Court. B. Trails: During the review of the subject application, two discrepancies between the conditions of approval for SUBTT18961 and the recorded Final Map were discovered by staff. First, one of the conditions of approval (Condition of Approval #10; in Conditions of Approval in Exhibit G) for SUBTT18961 specified that the design of the trail shall conform to Engineering Services Department Standard Drawings 1006-B and 1007-B (Exhibit H). These standards are typically applied to wider Community Trails, whereas the subject trail is only a Local Feeder Trail. For example, Standard Drawings 1006-B and 1007-B require a 20-foot wide trail easement at entrances to accommodate vehicular access at a minimum 10 feet 6 inches wide, and an equestrian step-through greater than 70- inches wide. The recorded Final Map illustrates only a 15-foot wide equestrian easement consistent with the typical width of a Local Feeder Trail. Second, pursuant to Condition of Approval #10 for SUBTT18961, the construction of the trail improvements was required prior to recordation of the Final Map. The Final Map was recorded on October 22, 2018 without the trail having been constructed. As a result, the recorded Final Setbacks Required (Min.) Provided Complies? Front Yard Setback 42 feet 42 feet YES Street Side Yard Setback* 27 feet 27 feet YES Interior Side Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet YES 2nd Interior Side Yard Setback** 15 feet 15 feet YES Rear Yard Setback 60 feet 60 feet YES 296 296 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND January 22, 2020 Page 4 Map does not conform to Standard Drawing 1006-B and 1007-B and the trail remains unimproved. In researching these issues, staff discovered that as part of the review process for SUBTT18961 in 2014 and 2015, the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC) on October 8, 2014, recommended approval of SUBTT18961 based on a trail width of 15 feet, which is consistent with standards for Local Feeder Trails. Further, the Planning Commission also acknowledged the 15-foot trail width upon their approval of SUBTT18961 on January 28, 2015. Consequently, the recorded Final Map reflects a 15-foot wide equestrian easement consistent with the TAC and Planning Commission’s decisions, but inconsistent with Condition #10 of SUBTT18961 which requires a wider 20-foot easement pursuant to Standard Drawings 1006- B and 1007-B. Considering the fact that both the TAC and Planning Commission previously acknowledged the 15-foot wide trail easement during the processing of SUBTT18961 in 2014 and 2015, staff feels that Condition #10 for SUBTT18961 was therefore included in the conditions of approval in error as it erroneously applies wider Community Trail Standards 1006-B and 1007-B to a narrower Local Feeder Trail network. In order to be consistent with both the recorded Final Map and appropriate Local Feeder Trail standards, the applicant has submitted plans demonstrating that the equestrian easement will alternatively be designed to Standard Drawing 1006-C (Exhibit I) at 15 feet wide, consistent with the TAC and Planning Commission review and approval in 2014 and 2015. Further, constructing the trail to Standard Drawing 1006-C will allow the trail to be both consistent with the recorded Final Map and meet the standards for Local Feeder Trails. Accordingly, the Engineering Department issued a rough grading permit on December 12, 2019, approving the trail design consistent with Standard Drawing 1006-C, including an 11-foot wide vehicle gate and 36-inch minimum step-through. The approved rough grading plans are included with this staff report as Exhibit I (reference page 3 of Exhibit I). Staff has added a condition of approval to this project (Engineering Services Department Condition of Approval #1) reflecting this alternative Local Feeder Trail standard which supersedes Condition #10 of SUBTT18961. To ensure that the trail and drainage improvements are constructed pursuant to the recorded Final Map, a private agreement was executed between the project applicant and the Lot 1 property owner on October 28, 2019. The agreement grants the applicant permission to conduct necessary grading activity and install all required trail and drainage improvements (Exhibit J) across portions of Lot 1. As the original land owner and applicant of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18961, Mr. Octa, the current Lot 1 property owner, would have been required to construct improvements prior to subdividing the site. With the private agreement, the requirement to construct all trail and drainage improvements would be fulfilled by the applicant as part of the construction of the 6 new homes. C. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was conducted at Floyd M. Stork Elementary School on November 21, 2019 for the proposed project. Property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site were notified of the meeting via mailed notices. Approximately 8-10 residents attended the meeting. Residents asked questions about the project regarding the proposed architecture, perimeter wall conditions and construction 297 297 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND January 22, 2020 Page 5 schedules. The residents were generally in support of the project and raised no objections. The following week, staff sent out a follow-up email to solicit any questions, comments or concerns that were not brought up or addressed at the meeting. The email was sent to all residents in attendance who chose to provide their contact information. Staff did not receive any response to the correspondence. D. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Dopps, Guglielmo, and Smith) on November 20, 2019 (Exhibit K). The Committee recommended that the project move forward as presented to the Planning Commission for final review and approval. E. Environmental Assessment: Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects, as the project is a proposed development occurring within City limits on a project site less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed project is for the site plan and architectural review of 6 single-family residences on an existing subdivision (Tract Map 18961). The future construction of 6 single-family residences was originally considered under SUBTT18961 and its CEQA determination. SUBTT18961 was exempt under the Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. All environmental conditions relating to air quality, traffic, noise and water quality had been reviewed and it was determined that construction and operational activity relating to SUBTT18961 would not result in any significant effects. A Rapid Environmental Constraints Analysis (RECA) prepared by MIG in May 2014 also concluded that the project site had no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Therefore, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Design Review DRC2019-00502 will have a significant effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT: The project proponent will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The types of services that these impact fees would support include library services, transportation, infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the parcels will be assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: While no specific City Council goals are addressed, General Plan Policy LU-3.7 encourages new development projects to build on vacant in-fill sites within a built-out area. The vacant project site is within the Very Low (VL) Residential District and Equestrian Overlay and is adjacent to residential homes in the same zoning district. The proposed project will enhance our Premier Community Status by providing well-designed residences that are complementary to the surrounding development and will provide additional housing opportunities for residents and the region. 298 298 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND January 22, 2020 Page 6 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. On January 2, 2020, the Planning Department received a letter (Exhibit L) from Romy Octa, the property owner of Lot 1 of Tract 18961, expressing concerns about the removal of 7 fruit bearing trees and the construction of walls/fences on his property related to the construction of the equestrian easement. Staff informed Mr. Octa that the 7 trees in question, which are located within the equestrian easement, must be removed in order to accommodate the trail dimensions pursuant to the recorded Final Map. Further, the plans propose a split-rail fence along the equestrian trail within the easement on Mr. Octa’s property. This split-rail fencing is required pursuant to applicable equestrian trail standards. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Vicinity Map Exhibit B - Site Aerial Exhibit C - Site Plan and Tract Map 18961 Exhibit D - Floor & Roof Plans Exhibit E - Building Elevations Exhibit F - Landscape Plan Exhibit G - SUBTT18961 Staff Reports, Resolution and Conditions of Approval (January 28, 2015) Exhibit H - Engineering Services Department Standard Drawing 1006-B and 1007-B Exhibit I - Rough Grading Plans with Trail Standard 1006-C Exhibit J - Signed Agreement with Mr. Romy Octa, Property Owner of Lot 1 (October 28, 2019) Exhibit K - Design Review Committee Action Comments (November 20, 2019) Exhibit L - Letter from Mr. Romy Octa Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Design Review DRC2019-00502 299 299 EExhibit A300300 Exhibit B301301 Exhibit C302302 303 303 304304 305305 306306 307307 Exhibit D308308 Exhibit E 309 309 310 310 311 311 312 312 LOT 2LOT 1LOT 3LOT 522,676 SF45,004 SF20,034 SF22,430 SFLOT 4LOT 51-STORY: 3621 SF1-STORY: 3621 SF1-STORY: 3621 SF2-STORY: 4058 SF27,319 SF21,387 SFLOT 62-STORY: 4058 SFLOT 71-STORY: 3621 SF25,171 SFxxxxxxSignatureRenewal DateDateExhibit F313313 Exhibit G314314 315315 316316 317317 318318 319319 320320 321321 322322 323323 324324 325 325 326 326 327 327 328 328 329 329 330 330 331 331 332 332 333 333 334 334 335 335 336 336 337 337 338 338 339 339 340 340 341 341 342 342 Exhibit H 343 343 344 344 APN: 1061-691-7+581J:\942-2686\grading\RG\RG01.dwg, 8/20/2019 1:38:03 PM, DMartinezKeith D TuckerRGE 8418/21/198/Exhibit I 345 345 2346 346 347 347 NOTCH INVESTMENT, LP.1300 QUAIL STREET, SUITE 108, NEWPORTBEACH, CAPHONE: (714) 987-2213I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE NECESSARY STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN STRUCTURAL STORM WATERTREATMENT DEVICES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND ARE FUNCTIONAL TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AS OF THE DATEBELOW. SIGNATUREDATEWET SEALSTORMTECH MC-4500 UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION CHAMBERS WHERE THE DESIGNCAPTURE VOLUME WILL BE RETAINED, TREATED, AND INFILTRATED INTO THE SOIL BELOW.CATCH BASIN WITH FILTER INSERT THAT WILL INTERCEPT TRASH AND DEBRIS FROMRUNOFF BEFORE IT ENTERS THE UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION CHAMBERSFLOW ARROWDMA1 DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA NUMBERSUBAREA BOUNDARIES (DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS)STORMTECH MC-4500 INFILTRATION CHAMBERS AND ACCESS MANHOLE4SCARIFY SOILS UNDERNEATH CHAMBERS BEFORE INSTALLATION TO ENSURE MAXIMUMINFILTRATION CAPACITY.PROJECT NAME: TRACT 18961TRACT NO: 18961DRC:2014-00621GRADING PMT: PGR2018-00055WQMP PMT:WQMP2019-00002PHASE:NOT PHASED LOTS: 7MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC,9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730PHONE: (909) 481-6322WATER QUALITY MITIGATION SUMMARY:THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE A COMBINATION OF ON-LOT BMPS. EACH LOT WILLCAPTURE, RETAIN, AND INFILTRATE THE SITE DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME. EACH CATCH BASIN ONLOT WILL BE FITTED WITH A CATCH BASIN FILTER THAT WILL PRETREAT THE WATER BEFOREREACHING THE UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION CHAMBERS.SITE SUMMARY:TREATMENT AREA (DA1) = 215,431 SQ. FT. (4.95 AC.)EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUS AREA = 17,459 SQ. FT. (8%)PROPOSED SITE IMPERVIOUS AREA = 34,629 SQ. FT. (30%)99.1HPN.D.S. YARDDRAIN99.0FL/HPFS99.50(TYP.)(TYP.)2% MIN. (TYP.)10' MIN.15' MAX.TGINV.=TG-6" MIN.2% MIN. (TYP.)2% MIN. (TYP.)NOT TO SCALE(TYP.)99.1HP5% MINTGINV.=TG-6" MIN.99.1HP99.0FL/HPFS99.50(TYP.)(TYP.)10' MIN.15' MAX.99.1HP5% MIN520.000FINAL550.000FINAL560.000FINAL570.000590.000FINAL610.000FINAL640.000FINAL670.000FINAL680.000FINAL690.000FINAL700.000FINALACCESSMANHOLEOVERFLOWPIPE(CORE DRILL TOSTREET)348 348 NOTCH INVESTMENT, LP RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONOF BMPS UNTIL HOMEOWNER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY UPON PURCHASE OFTHE HOMENOTCH INVESTMENT, LP.1300 QUAIL STREET, SUITE 108, NEWPORT BEACH, CAPHONE: (714) 987-22135UPON FINAL DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF BMPS SHOWN ON THIS SITE AND DRAINAGE PLAN, THE OWNER/DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLEFOR REGISTERING ANY SYSTEM THAT IS DEEMED A CLASS V INJECTION WELL WITH THE EPA. IF THE INFILTRATION SYSTEM INVERT IS GREATERTHAN OR EQUAL TO 10 FEET BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE, THE SYSTEM BECOMES A CLASS V INJECTION WELL. THE OWNER/DEVELOPERSHALL USE THE ATTACHED FORM 7520-16 AND THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE:HTTPS://WWW.EPA.GOV/UIC/FORMS/UNDERGROUND-INJECTION-WELL-REGISTRATION-PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST-REGION-9TO REGISTER THE SYSTEM AS AN INJECTION WELL.349 349 350 350 351 351 352 352 353 353 354 354 355 355 12356 356 13357 357 358358 Exhibit J359359 360 360 NOVEMBER 19, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 1 of 3 A.CALL TO ORDER 7:30pm Roll Call: Diane Williams A Tony M. Guglielmo x Mike Smith x Alternates: Bryan Dopp x Francisco Oaxaca Additional Staff Present: Dat Tran, Assistant Planner. B.PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individuals members of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. Exhibit K 361 361 NOVEMBER 19, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 2 of 3 C1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE - A request for site plan and architectural review of an industrial building totaling 25,399 square feet on 1.87 acres of land located east of Vineyard Avenue and north of 8th Street in the General Industrial (GI) District; APN: 0209-013-13, -43, -44. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. 20,000 sq. ft. Industrial Project Staff presented the project to members of the Design Review committee. Principal Planner, Mike Smith, suggested that a Condition of Approval be included in the final staff report to require that all downspouts be routed through the interior of the building. The project was approved as presented and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. C2 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND - A request for site plan and architectural review of 6 single-family residences on 3.19 acres of land within the Very Low (VL) District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane; APNs: 1061-691-22, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. Staff presented the project to members of the Design Review committee. The project was approved as presented and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. D. ADJOURNMENT 8:00pm The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. 362 362 NOVEMBER 19, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 3 of 3 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. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, November 14, 2019 at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 363 363 PL 1t-J..J AJ11Vt:r � 1:=l'l1fl!.rNJe-tV7 �f -ry o F �� 01'-feJ CG(. O;ttmc1A.JG,( 1 � 9 I 7 2 9 �r c:l 13 0;( <to 7 ,e�Cff'C/ C<.,l 0;1J- mgv�,t ,e. e : it) t"" s r Q-0 ,e:. ev,, t!F u,.,,> �It C.. -2019-ooso:z -<".:CR .wf'7V.O ,r-77J.J • ' £:> Ir 7 7 A! A-IV p L-,t-� IV uV w l:::, eP T" · .St2J 1-5 ..gfl flP/-1/te G J1Tle6@7 �n-,.Jctf-O C.U.D/9r»d41G/( cA 9170/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA J:·-' .J !.. RECEIVED -�NG J..PJy µt1,r'Y)e-"s rtaMy H. oe.rr.110,uAIU?e... P.ec>"'et?Lry l.:f!Jrl A-l>IV/t:Jv/"r-.'l/.-2/ o P 71!�7 /lr7t'f-P JJO. /�q,� ( ., L\A..._ ,.,._,...r,.. <!i; ,:;-,J"c"ll l"'f Ncrrlff'Vcei) L 11rs 7" o 0,,ro,S � ,e 9 r �0,,/ '1 .C-A-..vl.> My IJVl r'°� ,,r, �__,,.,, I( '' F>El!fl'>t ss,o-o ro <;;�e ,,,.-,...;b r✓,,-�?"bt:� T'/1!,hr� ✓m��eme'AI r uPeitU t°lq'l°cR. r;y F�� �r�L�Y•l-rO��- OAJ HOYtnn�� ,1/ a. O1 Cj hl/1-�/'t( e,t!!!'A?°O"-'/ CP-/77,;t-l::,c,L,,.(: l't#� lt-SJ.�"17'U Jl'rNJJ ' ✓ J'l')y.St«.F \Nf'U.F<� ove-n.. Cl ,-.Qc-f..,Vl, dCL� _r-o{'t:"7Y .,I-G>c.�1'"'-:.C.I � nf-t;:" �&)/f!J=!.4 -/-o !!lo de#.rd. J 7GILJ°) r/rn? ..7 �ILL IVCJ'T fle-Rm,'r aun. �i::V�>v&) P�lr ia�.v c:. T�..J> T'o ,ae= G/Q,9.ot=a Oct-r so.:c.e, rr-r&r),l ;"'J-� \Nl,rrl,',v c:,a� f>R.4'/�c-�ry I A Oltle}t°e1(,_ :TMEy Cl,,1-,v c« 7" �cv,V �L c:J� Pt:l"-1 ..r-,gur� �.:c-fr-e;e9. 0/J N(JVe:»,�eY'l.. �--2-<:r?'. 6;1J-T r<!A-1V .,,-,v� .01'9vl',l> o/,C/pe.1./?. i.V� ,v� A-Lolll,:;. o,w2 .. Ht:7�6-r�t... /tlelF"D ✓,-NJJ n,� TM'e711 .r 'V-4', .l.. L .vo-r �w cn:.t-'fi!:, 'SJt.�N {r) f'r-u,' 7' h o,Cl.A ,.°,v _& -f-""6� TO St: e1,,-;-� cJ#t.nl.J ,r7,.N) ,1VC t,Q11-'Ll-1� 071.) OlJ� Hc'�-r�, pd�,-OP' Qrt.UL p,tl.Q,Ot:s72.TY • ,9J...t-OT� W� .+L.(f',Vt;; G:11PPH-t-.e� �� /-ll"<e G�/��.wrA�l'A..I'-s�?,, >l/..i)E w�,, W,'fLL. \N,. 'r/7 O/J6A.J �;J-ee ,re eer /I</ ,'t1V.d P�r OF cnuz. bli!./'v51JQ/t1/', mf>l,,,·,-�� /.)� &<..£/! mttl' .t..,9o_)C7 <:sA..J Y-fftrl ,s,/.J.>c IC#fC-1',. '9/,VCUf 7/.:f<r ' nvt-r.() co,vc.�,,,..s ONd./?� a,..-<2<::!..l'f �,3, W6 �YG No e->-8 �t:Jc7'�d,O ,.� 7Y:l/'�R !J'<,/dr�Jo /II IIV,?-LL /140JC/t;; rH/� AA:t�,Y u� Exhibit L 364 364 RESOLUTION NO.20-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF 6 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON 3.19 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAPPHIRE STREET AND BRITTANY LANE; APNS: 1061-691-22 through 27. A. Recitals. 1. GCA Land filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00502 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of January 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application at which time the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to January 22, 2020. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 22, 2020 including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a vacant project site located at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site is Very Low Residential. The Development Code zoning designation of the project site is Very Low (VL) Residential District; and c. The project site is surrounded to the north, west and south by existing single-family residential homes which are also in the Very Low (VL) Residential District. The project site’s northern boundary is adjacent to an existing 15-foot wide equestrian trail easement at the rear of the single-family homes. The project site’s east boundary is shared with Floyd M. Stork Elementary School; and d. The project site is a 4.75-acre site located at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane. The project site is improved with an existing single-family residence located on a separate lot at the northwest corner of the project site, now referred to as Lot 1. Lot 1 measures approximately 172 feet in width and 290 feet in length. The remainder of the site, measuring approximately 3.19 acres, is vacant and consists primarily of non-native vegetation and groundcover; and 365 365 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-02 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA Land January 22, 2020 Page 2 e. The applicant, GCA Land, is proposing to construct 6 single-family residences. The residences will be located on lots with sizes ranging between 20,034 to 27,319 square feet. Five of the 6 lots (Lots 3-7) are located around a proposed private street and cul-de-sac, Brittany Court. Access to these lots are provided to these 5 lots via onsite driveways extending to the cul-de-sac. Lot 2 is accessible directly from Sapphire Street; and f. Two separate floor plans are proposed, each with two elevations each. Floor Plan #1 represents the four single-story homes on Lots 2,3,5 and 7 and includes 3,610 square feet of living space, 696 square foot garage, 88 square foot porch and a 281 square foot California room. Floor Plan #2 represents the two two-story homes on Lots 4 and 6 and includes 4,058 square feet of living space, 633 square foot garage, 85 square foot porch and a 181 square foot California room; and g. Overall, the project site complies with the applicable Development Standards for the Very Low (VL) Residential District. The proposed residences are below the 25% lot coverage maximum permitted and meet or exceed the minimum setback requirements. The maximum height of all residences is below the 35 feet maximum height permitted in the Very Low (VL) Residential District. The project also complies with the City’s landscape standards. Site landscape coverage in the front yards exceeds the minimum 50% requirement; and h. All proposed residences are designed with architecturally consistent design elements that extend throughout the faces of each residence (360-degree architecture). Architectural articulation and breaks in the wall planes are used throughout the façade of each residence to break up each building’s massing. Decorative windows and shutters, wood rafters, light fixtures and air vents are also provided to limit the amount of blank façade along the wall planes. Residences consists primarily of stucco-coated exterior walls and tile roofing. Alternative material finishes, such as brick, stacked stone, or board and batten, are provided on each home to emphasize and vary the chosen architectural style of each home. The homes are also carefully oriented onsite to create variation in elevations of the home as visible from the public right-of-way. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The site is located within land designated as Very Low Residential. The Very Low Residential designation permits residential developments of 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. The project consists of 6 single- family residential homes on 3.19 acres of land. All site improvements, including onsite garage parking and front yard landscaping, are designed to be consistent with the very low-density residential land use as designated in 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. The Development Code designates the project site as a Very Low (VL) Residential District. The proposed residences are consistent with the development standards established for residential development in the Very Low (VL) Residential District. The proposed residences are below the 25% lot coverage maximum permitted and meet or exceed the minimum setback requirements. The maximum height of all residences is below the 35 feet maximum height permitted in the Very Low (VL) Residential District. The project also complies with the City’s landscape standards. Site landscape coverage in the front yards exceeds the minimum 50% requirement; and 366 366 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-02 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA Land January 22, 2020 Page 3 c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed project consists of 6 single-family residential homes on 3.19 acres of land, which is consistent with the Very Low (VL) Residential District requirement. The scale and sizes of the proposed homes and lot are consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. The residences will meet all residential development standards and will be constructed per the California Building Code’s requirements. Therefore, the project is not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of properties in the vicinity; and d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood consists of residential homes in the Very Low (VL) Residential District. The applicant is proposing to construct 6 single-family residences. The residences will be located on lots with sizes ranging between 20,034 to 27,319 square feet. All the lots and residences will be similar in size and scale to other lots and residences in the neighborhood. The construction of the residences will comply with all California safety laws and the California Building Code. The project is therefore not expected to generate public health, safety or welfare impacts or be detrimental to improvements in the vicinity. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects, as the project is a proposed development occurring within city limits on a project site less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed project is for the site plan and architectural review of 6 single-family residences on an existing subdivision (Tract Map 18961). The future construction of 6-single family residences was originally considered under SUBTT18961 and its CEQA determination. SUBTT18961 was exempt under the Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. All environmental conditions relating to air quality, traffic, noise and water quality had been reviewed and it was determined that construction and operational activity relating to SUBTT18961 would not result in any significant effects. A Rapid Environmental Constraints Analysis (RECA) prepared by MIG in May 2014 also concluded that the project site had no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Therefore, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth Paragraphs 1,2,3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the applications subject to each and every condition in the attached Standard Conditions incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF JANUARY 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman 367 367 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-02 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA Land January 22, 2020 Page 4 ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, 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 22nd day of January 2020, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 368 368 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2019-00502 Project Name: EDR - SUBTPM18961 7-Lot Subdivision Location: 5615 SAPPHIRE ST - 106169123-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of permits, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.16.080, a Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained if any heritage trees are to be removed as a result of this project. 1. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 2. Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 3. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 4. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 5. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Services Department and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 6. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 7. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 8. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 1/15/2020 369 369 Project #: DRC2019-00502 Project Name: EDR - SUBTPM18961 7-Lot Subdivision Location: 5615 SAPPHIRE ST - 106169123-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Where corner side, interior side or rear yard property lines are adjacent to local equestrian trails, construct minimum 6-foot high decorative masonry walls. Decorative masonry shall mean split-face double sided block, ‘slump stone’ or an alternative material that is acceptable to the Design Review Committee. 9. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 10. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for 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. 11. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 12. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 13. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 14. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 15. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 16. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5 percent at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building and Safety Official. 17. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the equestrian trail shall be constructed to Local Feeder Trail standards to the satisfaction of the City. This condition shall supersede Condition of Approval #10 for SUBTT18961 as approved by the Planning Commission on January 28, 2015. 1. Standard Conditions of Approval www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 3Printed: 1/15/2020 370 370 Project #: DRC2019-00502 Project Name: EDR - SUBTPM18961 7-Lot Subdivision Location: 5615 SAPPHIRE ST - 106169123-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide as as-built grading plan showing that the equestrian trails have been graded per the rough grading plan. Construction of the trail improvements may be per the precise grading plan. 1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 2. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 3. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for this development, the applicant shall provide to the City Engineer for reference a copy of the separate On-site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) plans for reference with the submittal of the precise grading plan. The separately permitted OWTS shall be submitted to the Building Official for review and permitting. The OWTS shall meet the requirements of adopted Local Agency Management Program for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (LAMP OWTS), effective September 17, 2018 which requires site specific percolation testing. A copy of the LAMP OWTS is available on the Building and Safety webpage. 5. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 3Printed: 1/15/2020 371 371 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE - A request for site plan and architectural review of an industrial building totaling 25,399 square feet on 1.87 acres of land located east of Vineyard Avenue and north of 8th Street in the General Industrial (GI) District; APN: 0209-013-13, -43, -44. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review DRC2018-00430 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site consists of three vacant, contiguous lots located within the General Industrial (GI) District, on the east side of Vineyard Avenue and north of 8th Street. The project site is bounded to the north and east by the Cucamonga Creek flood control channel, Vineyard Avenue to the west, and the BNSF/Metro Link rail line along the south property line. The site is generally flat and at-grade with Vineyard Avenue. A slight north to south downward slope exists on the property, with an overall grade change of roughly 7 feet. The project site’s street frontage along Vineyard Avenue is currently improved with a sidewalk and street lights. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District North Cucamonga Creek / Industrial Warehouse Facility Flood Control / General Industrial Flood Control (FC) / General Industrial (GI) Districts South Vacant General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District West Industrial Warehouse Facility General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District DATE: January 22, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Dat Tran, Assistant Planner 372 372 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE January 22, 2020 Page 2 East Cucamonga Creek / Industrial Warehouse Facility Flood Control / General Industrial Flood Control (FC) / General Industrial (GI) Districts BACKGROUND: A Design Review (DRC2003-00583) proposal was submitted for a 16,440 square foot industrial facility of a similar configuration at the project site in June 2003. Based on staff’s review of the files, the applicant appears to have stopped the project during the review process and entitlements and entitlements were never granted. The project site has remained vacant. The subject application was originally scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 8, 2020. However, due to a noticing error, the Planning Commission voted to continue this item to the January 22, 2020 public hearing. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, RC Store Maintenance, is proposing to construct a 25,399 square- foot industrial warehousing building on the project site. The building consists of 15,430 square feet of warehousing space and 9,969 square feet of office space. Two access points will be provided to the property, at the northwest and southwest corner of the project site along Vineyard Avenue. A single driveway will connect both egress points to provide circulation through the site and access to the parking lot and two loading docks. Parking, truck storage and walkway areas line the side of the driveway and wrap around the north, east and south sides of the building. Overall, the project site complies with the applicable Development Standards as indicated in the tables below: Parking Spaces Types Required Proposed Passenger Vehicles 47 47 Truck/Trailers 2 2 Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Building Height Max. 35 feet (at front setback) 75 feet (1 foot increment from the setback line) 37 feet (at 2 feet from setback line) YES Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50-60% 50 % YES Front Setback (Vineyard Avenue) Min. 35 feet 35 feet YES Interior Side Yard Setback Min. 5 feet 51 feet (north) 58 feet (south) YES Rear Yard Setback Min. 0 feet 83 feet YES Parking Setback Min. 20 feet (Vineyard Avenue) 20 feet YES 373 373 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE January 22, 2020 Page 3 The proposed industrial building meets the City’s 360-degree design standards. The building façades incorporate a variety of materials, including tilt-up concrete, metal and glass. Architectural articulation and material breaks are used throughout the façade to break up the building’s massing. The front elevation of the building, facing the Vineyard Avenue, consists of large expanses of glass windows and doorways. The use of metal accents and metal canopies along the glass façade also distinguishes the glass elements from the concrete walls. The result is an industrial building with extensive architectural articulation and material breaks that closely resembles the look of an office building. Glass and metal accents are used extensively throughout the all elevations of the building, creating visual interest and reducing the amount of blank walls. The building also incorporates painted and sandblasted concrete, which helps break up the uniform look of tilt-up concrete walls. The project complies with the City’s landscape standards. Site landscape coverage exceeds the minimum requirement of 10% and includes an overall depth of 35 feet along Vineyard Avenue. The landscaping palette includes a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to help screen mechanical equipment and enhance the appearance of the building. The project will also incorporate a 537 square foot employee break area as required by the Development Code for new industrial buildings. B. Public Art: The project is required to provide public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Pursuant to Chapter 17.124, newly constructed industrial facilities are required to provide art work with a value equal to or exceeding one dollar per square foot of the facility. In lieu of providing the art required, the applicant may also donate art work to the City or pay an in-lieu fee into the City’s public art trust fund. A condition of approval is included within the Draft Resolution of Approval specifying the requirements for the artwork. In-lieu fees are paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Donated artwork and artwork installed onsite are required prior to occupancy of the building. C. Neighborhood Meeting: A Neighborhood Meeting was conducted at Bear Gulch Elementary School on September 11, 2019 for the proposed project. Property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site were notified of the meeting via mailed notices. No residents attended the meeting. After the meeting, staff received a call from a resident, Mr. Charles Verrill. Mr. Verrill stated his opposition to the project, citing his concerns with traffic and air quality impacts to adjacent neighborhood. Staff explained to Mr. Verrill that the City’s traffic engineer reviewed the project and that an air quality analysis had also been conducted, concluding that there are no apparent safety or operational concerns with implementation of the project. Staff invited Mr. Verrill to come to City Hall and discuss his concerns further. Mr. Verrill did not respond to staff’s invitation. Mr. Verrill also expressed his concern with an error in the Neighborhood Meeting notification letter sent out by the applicant on October 30, 2019. The first paragraph of the notification letter erroneously stated that a pre-school was proposed for the site. The error was not caught prior to mailing of the notification letters. However, the rest of the letter did contain the correct information (Exhibit H). Mr. Verrill expressed concerns that neighbors were less likely to attend the meeting due to the error in the first paragraph. Staff asked the applicant to hold a second Neighborhood Meeting in order to address the notification issue. A second notification letter was sent out on December 4, 2019 with all the correct information (Exhibit H) and a second Neighborhood meeting was conducted on December 17, 2019. No residents attended the meeting and staff has not received any additional correspondence regarding the project. 374 374 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE January 22, 2020 Page 4 D. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Dopps, Guglielmo, and Smith) on November 20, 2019 (Exhibit I). Principal Planner, Mike Smith, suggested that a condition of approval be placed on the plans requiring placement of downspouts in the interior of the building. A condition of approval is included within the Draft Resolution of Approval requiring all downspouts be routed through the interior of the building. The Committee recommended that the project move forward as presented to the Planning Commission for final review and approval. E. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects, as the project is a proposed development occurring within city limits on a project site less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is a 25,399 square foot warehouse building located on 1.87 acres of land within the General Industrial (GI) District. The warehouse use is consistent with the intent of the General Industrial designation in the General Plan and project meets all applicable development standards and zoning regulations of the Development Code. The warehouse building is similar in scale and is consistent with industrial buildings in the nearby vicinity. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and police and fire services. To demonstrate that the project qualified for the exemption, specific environmental studies were prepared to assess any potential impacts that the project might have on the environment. As a result of these studies, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The studies prepared analyzed the following topics: • Phase I CEQA Survey (The Planning Associates Group, Inc., August 2018) – The Survey determined that the project site’s habitat consisted of non-native plant species. The Survey also determined that there were no riparian or wetland habitats that would support sensitive, threatened or endangered species. Lastly, the Survey concluded that vegetation on the project site does not provide suitable nesting sites for common or special avian species, such as raptors. • Air Quality Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, September 2018) and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Urban Crossroads, September 2018) – Both analyses determined that the project would not exceed the applicable Southern California Air Quality Management District’s threshold for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, respectively, during construction or operational activity. • Noise Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, September 2018) – The Analysis concluded that the project’s noise contribution to adjacent roadways would be less than significant and that the on-site construction and operation noises levels will be less than the City’s 80 dBA maximum noise level standards for industrial use and less than 65 dBA at nearby residential homes in the City of Ontario. 375 375 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE January 22, 2020 Page 5 • Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Sake Engineers, Inc., October 2018) – The WQMP was submitted and reviewed by the City’s grading engineer. The City’s grading engineer approved the conceptual design and will review the final design when grading plans are submitted. • Traffic - The City’s traffic engineer also reviewed the proposed development and concluded that there are no apparent traffic safety or operational concerns with implementation of the project. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, the project is only expected to generate 35 passenger car equivalent (PCE) daily trips, including 3 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 4 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. The City’s traffic engineer determined that the PCE trip levels did not require additional traffic studies to be submitted. FISCAL IMPACT: The project proponent will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The types of services that these impact fees would support include drainage improvements, and transportation and police services. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the parcels will be assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: While no specific City Council goals are addressed, General Plan Policy LU-3.7 encourages new development projects to build on vacant in-fill sites within a built-out area. The vacant project site is within the General Industrial (GI) District and is adjacent to industrial warehouse developments to the south and west. The proposed warehouse building will enhance our Premier Community Status by providing well-designed industrial buildings that are complementary to the surrounding development and will provide additional employment opportunities for residents and the region. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. To date, no comments have been received regarding the project notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Site Aerial Exhibit B - Site Vicinity Plan Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Floor & Roof Plans Exhibit E - Building Elevations Exhibit F - Landscape Plan Exhibit G - Neighborhood Meeting Letters Exhibit H - Design Review Committee Action Comments (November 19, 2019) Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Design Review DRC2018-00430 376 376 Exhibit A377377 THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND ARE PROPERTY OF BONALDO ENGINEERING. ALLDESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION ON THESEDRAWINGS ARE FOR THE USE ON THE SPECIFIED PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED OTHERWISEWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OFBONALDO ENGINEERING. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ONTHESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFYAND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS ANDCONDITIONS ON THE FIELD AND THIS OFFICE SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONSAND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. bonaldoengineering SITE UTILIZATION MAP600' TYP.PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEVACANT ZONING: GI AUTO REPAIR & RETAIL 20' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI AUTO REPAIR & SMOG 25' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI LANDSCAPE SERVICE ZONING: GI STEEL SUPPLY COMPANY 45' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI AUTO REPAIR 16' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI DAY CARE 16' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: CN E 8TH STREET RAIL ROADN VINYARD AVE.RESIDENTIAL 14' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: LDR-5 VACANT ZONING: GI PROPOSED OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE 35' HIGH 2-STORY ZONING: GI AUTO REPAIR 16' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI AUTO REPAIR 18' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI CAFE 12' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI RETAIL 16' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: CN RESIDENTIAL 25' HIGH 2-STORY ZONING: MDR-18 RESIDENTIAL 18' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: MDR-18 FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL ZONING: FC FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL ZONING: FC FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL ZONING: FC RETAIL & DISTRIBUTION 20' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI INDUSTRIAL/ MANUFACTURING 20' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI MANUFACTURING & DISTRIBUTION 30' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI FURNITURE STORE 35' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI MANUFACTURING & DISTRIBUTION 30' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION 30' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI RAIL ROAD RAIL ROAD WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION 35' HIGH 1-STORY ZONING: GI NEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR RC STORE MAINTENANCE & RAINYDAY ROOFING SITE Exhibit B378378 THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND ARE PROPERTY OF BONALDO ENGINEERING. ALLDESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION ON THESEDRAWINGS ARE FOR THE USE ON THE SPECIFIED PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED OTHERWISEWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OFBONALDO ENGINEERING. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ONTHESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFYAND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS ANDCONDITIONS ON THE FIELD AND THIS OFFICE SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONSAND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. bonaldoengineering PROPOSED SITE PLAN & PROJECT DATA NEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR RC STORE MAINTENANCE & RAINYDAY ROOFING AC DRAIN GATE 2Exhibit C379379 THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE ANDARE PROPERTY OF BONALDO ENGINEERING. ALLDESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION ON THESEDRAWINGS ARE FOR THE USE ON THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED OTHERWISEWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OFBONALDO ENGINEERING. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ONTHESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVERSCALED DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFYAND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS ANDCONDITIONS ON THE FIELD AND THIS OFFICE SHALL BENOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONSAND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS.bonaldoengineeringOVERALLPROPOSEDFLOOR PLANExhibit D 380 380 THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE ANDARE PROPERTY OF BONALDO ENGINEERING. ALLDESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION ON THESEDRAWINGS ARE FOR THE USE ON THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED OTHERWISEWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OFBONALDO ENGINEERING. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ONTHESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVERSCALED DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFYAND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS ANDCONDITIONS ON THE FIELD AND THIS OFFICE SHALL BENOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONSAND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS.bonaldoengineeringPROPOSEDOFFICESPACE1ST. FLOORPLAN381 381 THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE ANDARE PROPERTY OF BONALDO ENGINEERING. ALLDESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION ON THESEDRAWINGS ARE FOR THE USE ON THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED OTHERWISEWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OFBONALDO ENGINEERING. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ONTHESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVERSCALED DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFYAND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS ANDCONDITIONS ON THE FIELD AND THIS OFFICE SHALL BENOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONSAND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS.bonaldoengineeringPROPOSEDOFFICESPACE2ND. FLOORPLAN382 382 383 383 Exhibit E 384 384 Exhibit F 385 385 Date: December 4, 2019 Dear Property Owners: It has come to our attention that the original Neighborhood Meeting notification letter (dated, October 30, 2019) sent out to you had an unintended error in the first paragraph. It stated that the proposed project is a Preschool. The proposed project is actually a Warehouse/Office Building. Although there was a mistake in the first paragraph, the rest of the original notification letter did state all the information correctly. We apologize for the error, and please be assured that it was not an attempt to obscure the nature of the project. In an effort to be as transparent as possible and to be good neighbors, we have decided to hold a second Neighborhood Meeting. Please see the following sheet for the specific details regarding the meeting, including the scheduled time and place for the new meeting. Thank You Very Much for your understanding. Sincerely, Serge Bonaldo Bonaldo Engineering Ph. (909) 944-9992 sergeb@bonaldoeng.com Exhibit G 386 386 Date: December 4, 2019 Dear Property Owner: The following is a notice that a Neighborhood Meeting will be held to discuss a development proposal in your neighborhood. There will be information on the proposed Warehouse/Office Building to be constructed, and there will be site plans, floor plans and renderings available for viewing at the meeting. Project Name: RC Store Maintenance Meeting Date: December 17, 2019 Meeting Time: 6pm to 7pm Meeting Location: Bear Gulch Elementary School 8355 Bear Gulch Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Project Location: On Vineyard Ave. North of 8 th St. and N/E of Railroad Project Description: Proposed 25,399 square foot warehouse with 9,969 square foot office facility. The facility will have a 47 parking stalls. Project Information: Building Footprint: 20,385 square feet Building Height: 37 feet Setback (Minimum): 35 feet Parking Lot Size: 35,685 square feet The intent of the Neighborhood Meeting is to serve as a forum to gather neighborhood’s opinion regarding the project prior to the public hearing. Once the public hearing has been set, you will receive additional notification regarding the location, date and time of meeting. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please find the contact information below. If you have questions regarding the City’s process for the application, please contact Dat Tran at (909) 477-2750 x 4326, or dat.tran@cityofrc.us. Please see enclosure for the directional map. Sincerely, Serge Bonaldo Bonaldo Engineering Ph. (909) 944-9992 sergeb@bonaldoeng.com Enclosure: Map to Meeting Location 387 387 Directions to Neighborhood Meeting Project Site Meeting Site Bear Gulch Elementary School MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM 388 388 389389 390390 NOVEMBER 19, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 1 of 3 A.CALL TO ORDER 7:30pm Roll Call: Diane Williams A Tony M. Guglielmo x Mike Smith x Alternates: Bryan Dopp x Francisco Oaxaca Additional Staff Present: Dat Tran, Assistant Planner. B.PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individuals members of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. Exhibit H 391 391 NOVEMBER 19, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 2 of 3 C1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC STORE MAINTENANCE - A request for site plan and architectural review of an industrial building totaling 25,399 square feet on 1.87 acres of land located east of Vineyard Avenue and north of 8th Street in the General Industrial (GI) District; APN: 0209-013-13, -43, -44. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. 20,000 sq. ft. Industrial Project Staff presented the project to members of the Design Review committee. Principal Planner, Mike Smith, suggested that a Condition of Approval be included in the final staff report to require that all downspouts be routed through the interior of the building. The project was approved as presented and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. C2 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00502 – GCA LAND - A request for site plan and architectural review of 6 single-family residences on 3.19 acres of land within the Very Low (VL) District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) at the northeast corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane; APNs: 1061-691-22, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. Staff presented the project to members of the Design Review committee. The project was approved as presented and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. D. ADJOURNMENT 8:00pm The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. 392 392 NOVEMBER 19, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 3 of 3 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. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, November 14, 2019 at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 393 393 RESOLUTION NO.20-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 25,399 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A VACANT SITE TOTALING 1.87 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND NORTH OF 8TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-013-13, -43, -44. A. Recitals. 1. RC Store Maintenance filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2018- 00430 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of January 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application at which time the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to January 22, 2020. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 22, 2020 including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a vacant project site located east of Vineyard Avenue and north of 8th Street. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site is General Industrial. The Development Code zoning designation of the project site is General Industrial (GI) District; and c. The project site is bounded to the north and east by the Cucamonga Creek drainage channel, Vineyard Avenue to the west, and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority rail line along the south property line. The site is generally flat and at-grade with Vineyard Avenue. A slight north to south downward slope exists on the property, with an overall grade change of roughly 7 feet; and d. The site is surrounded by industrial warehousing facilities to the north, east and west of the project site. The site to the south of the project site is currently vacant but is also in the General Industrial (GI) District. 394 394 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-01 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC Store Maintenance January 22, 2020 Page 2 e. The applicant, RC Store Maintenance, is proposing to construct a 25,399 square- foot industrial warehousing building on the project site. The building consists of 15,430 square feet of warehousing space and 9,969 square feet of office space. Two access points will be provided to the property, at the northwest and southwest corner of the project site along Vineyard Avenue. A single driveway will connect both egress points to provide circulation through the site and access to the parking lot and two loading docks; and f. Parking, truck storage and walkway areas line the side of the driveway and wrap around the north, east and south sides of the building. A total of 47 parking spaces are provided to meet the minimum parking requirements. The project also includes two truck-well areas near the loading docks for large truck/trailer parking; and g. Overall, the project site complies with the applicable Development Standards for the General Industrial (GI) District. The proposed warehouse building maintains a 35 foot setback from Vineyard Avenue, 51 foot and 58 foot interior side yard setback, and an 83 foot rear yard setback. The maximum height of the proposed warehouse facility is 37 feet. Highest point of the facility is located two (2) feet behind the front setback line. The building conforms with the height limit of the General Industrial (GI) District, which permits a maximum height of 37 feet when located 37 feet back from the setback line; and h. The proposed industrial building meets the City’s 360-degree design standards. Architectural articulation and material breaks are used throughout the façade to break up the building’s massing. The front elevation of the building, facing the Vineyard Avenue, consists of large expanses of glass windows and doorways. The use of metal accents and metal canopies along the glass façade also distinguishes the glass elements from the concrete walls. The result is an industrial building with extensive architectural articulation and material breaks that closely mimics the look of an office building. Glass and metal accents are used extensively throughout the other elevations of the building, creating visual interest and reducing the amount of blank walls. The building also incorporates painted and sandblasted concrete, which helps break up the uniform look of tilt-up concrete walls; and i. The project also complies with the City’s landscape standards. Site landscape coverage exceeds the minimum requirement of 10% and includes an overall depth of 35 feet along Vineyard Avenue. The landscaping palette includes a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to help screen mechanical equipment and enhance the appearance of the building. The project will also incorporate a 537 square foot employee break area as required by the Development Code for new industrial buildings. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The site is located within land designated as General Industrial. The General Industrial designation permits a wide range of industrial activities that include warehousing and office uses. The project consists of a 25,399 square foot industrial building, including 9,969 square foot dedicated to office space, on 1.87 acre of land. The warehouse building is designed for wholesale warehousing with ancillary office uses. All site improvements, including parking and landscaped areas, are designed to be consistent 395 395 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-01 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC Store Maintenance January 22, 2020 Page 3 with the warehousing use and are consistent with the General Industrial land use as designated in the General Plan. 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. The Development Code designates the project site as a General Industrial (GI) District. The potential industrial and warehousing land uses that would be associated with this project are consistent with the General Industrial (GI) District. The project site is adjacent to other sites in the General Industrial (GI) District, including an industrial warehouse building of similar size and scale to the north, west and east of the project site. The project site has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 and within the 0.50 to 0.60 FAR range permitted in the General Industrial (GI) District. c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The facility is designed for industrial warehouse operations with ancillary office space to support the main warehousing use. The facility meets all setbacks, floor area and height requirements. The facility has also been designed to meet the City’s architectural standards. The facility will also comply with all parking, access and landscaping requirements. Therefore, the project meets all applicable provisions of the Development Code. d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood consists of warehousing facilities and vacant lots zoned for industrial facilities in the General Industrial (GI) District. The proposed project is a 25,399 square foot industrial warehouse building similar in size and scale to the other warehousing facilities nearby. The construction and operations of the facility are expected to meet all Development Code standards regarding noise and odor. The project is therefore not expected to generate public health, safety or welfare impacts or be detrimental to improvements in the vicinity. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects, as the project is a proposed development occurring within city limits on a project site less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is a 25,399 square foot warehouse building located on 1.87 acres of land within the General Industrial (GI) District. The warehouse use is consistent with the intent of the General Industrial (GI) designation in the General Plan and project meets all applicable development standards and zoning regulations of the Development Code. The warehouse building is similar in scale and is consistent with industrial buildings in the nearby vicinity. The site can be adequately served all required utilities and police and fire services. To demonstrate that the project qualified for the exemption, specific environmental studies were prepared to assess any potential impacts that the project might have on the environment. As a result of these studies, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The studies prepared analyzed the following topics: • Phase I CEQA Survey (The Planning Associates Group, Inc., August 2018) – The Survey determined that the project site’s habitat consisted of non-native plant species. The Survey also determined that there were no riparian or wetland habitats that would 396 396 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-01 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC Store Maintenance January 22, 2020 Page 4 support sensitive, threatened or endangered species. Lastly, the Survey concluded that vegetation on the project site does not provide suitable nesting sites for common or special avian species, such as raptors. • Air Quality Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, September 2018) and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Urban Crossroads, September 2018) – Both analyses determined that the project would not exceed the applicable Southern California Air Quality Management District’s threshold for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, respectively, during construction or operational activity. • Noise Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, September 2018) – The Analysis concluded that the project’s noise contribution to adjacent roadways would be less than significant and that the on-site construction and operation noises levels will be less than the City’s 80 dBA maximum noise level standards for industrial use and less than 65 dBA at nearby residential homes in the City of Ontario. • Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Sake Engineers, Inc., October 2018) – The WQMP was submitted and reviewed by the City’s grading engineer. The City’s grading engineer approved the conceptual design and will review the final design when grading plans are submitted. • Traffic - The City’s traffic engineer also reviewed the proposed development and concluded that there are no apparent traffic safety or operational concerns with implementation of the project. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, the project is only expected to generate 35 passenger car equivalent (PCE) daily trips, including 3 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 4 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. The City’s traffic engineer determined that the PCE trip levels did not require additional traffic studies to be submitted. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth Paragraphs 1,2,3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the applications subject to each and every condition in the attached Standard Conditions incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF JANUARY 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP Secretary 397 397 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-01 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00430 – RC Store Maintenance January 22, 2020 Page 5 I, Anne McIntosh, 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 22nd day of January 2020, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 398 398 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the building. 1. All ground-mounted equipment, including utility boxes, transformers, and back-flow devices, shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on-center. All ground-mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed otherwise by the Fire Department. 2. The employee break area shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on center with minimum dimensions of 4 inches by 12 inches. Each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural design and finishes/trim used on the building. The trellis shall be painted to match the building. Tables, chairs/benches, and waste receptacles shall be provided. 3. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color.4. All walls, including retaining walls, exposed to public view shall be constructed of decorative masonry blocks, i.e., slump stone, split-face, or have a decorative finish such as stucco texture to match a concrete tilt up wall. 5. All dock doors shall be painted to match the main color of the building.6. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building.7. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 8. Standard Conditions of Approval www.CityofRC.us Printed: 1/15/2020 399 399 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 9. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 11. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 12. 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. 13. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 14. This project is subject to the public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. No final approval, such as a final inspection or a certificate of occupancy, for any development project subject to this chapter shall be granted or issued unless and until the requirements of this chapter have been met. In consideration of any phasing plan or project completion schedule, the city may accept bonds or other surety to assist in the completion of the project, provided they are in a form and manner acceptable to the planning director and city attorney. 15. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 400 400 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain a Zone "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to issuance of Building Permits. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. If the developer chooses not to obtain a CLOMR/LOMR from FEMA, it shall be the developers responsibility to comply with section 19.12.050 of the City’s Municipal Code and provide all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations for the base flood elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, if the developer chooses not to obtain a CLOMR from FEMA, prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide written confirmation that they acknowledge that their property may be subject to flood insurance requirements. 1. Install 66" Master Plan Storm Drain facilities (Line 32-A) along the southerly portion of the property, from the centerline of Vineyard to the Flood Control Channel, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A 25' public drainage easement will be required and a temporary adjacent 25' temporary construction easement). Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of permanent master plan facilities, in accordance with City policy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover over sizing costs, in excess of fees, from future development with the same tributary area. 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. It is the City's understanding that the applicant desires to enter into an agreement with an adjacent developer for a proposed project to the west of this development. If an agreement is agreed to, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the adjacent developer shall provide the City with approved storm drain plans and a CLOMR for the Line 32-A storm drain over this project. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Line 32-A storm drain over this project shall be constructed. As the construction schedule for the adjacent developer is unknown, the Line 32-A storm drain to be constructed within the proposed project the Line 32-A may be bulkheaded at the west and easterly property lines. 2. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for 66 kV electrical) on the project side of Vineyard Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole offsite on the south side of the project boundary and to the first pole offsite on the north side of the project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Vineyard shall be undergrounded at the same time. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 3. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 401 401 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities, on the opposite side of Vineyard Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the line to the north property boundary. 4. 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. 5. Standard Conditions of Approval Vineyard Avenue right-of-way shall be either dedicated or vacated on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline) to meet the City requirements for a Secondary Street: 44' total feet on Vineyard Avenue. Show both the monument centerline and the construction centerline on the plans. 6. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. The drainage study shall take into account proposed (interim) and future (post master plan storm drain installation) hydrologic conditions of the site. 7. An encroachment permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way and must be obtained prior to grading permit issuance. The encroachment permit must be finalized prior to occupancy. 8. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of Building Permits. 9. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 10. Prior to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District LMD 3B, SLD 1, and SLD 6, among the parcel(s). 11. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 402 402 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 12. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans.” If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. 13. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Vineyard Avenue Curb & Gutter (removal and replacement as required) A.C. Pavement (removal and replacement or overlay as required by the City Engineer) Side-walk (removal and replacement as required) Drive Approach (removal and replacement as required) Street Lights (if required) Street Trees South driveway adjacent to tracks shall be right out, exit only, and restrict any truck access. 14. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 403 403 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans (including revisions to approved street plans), including street trees, and street lights shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements the issuance of Building Permits. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, and traffic signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. f. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. 16. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 404 404 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Vineyard Avenue Botanical Name - Tristaniopsis Laurina Common Name - Water Gum Spacing - 25' OC Size - 15 Gallon Minimum Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 17. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 18. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.19. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 20. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 21. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 405 405 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and building must be in accordance to the State of CA and ADA regulations. 1. Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 1. Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit the proposed plans to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (who whomever has jurisdiction over the railroad property along the southerly boundary) for review and approval for the disposition of storm water onto the adjacent railroad property. A copy of said comments shall be provided to the City Engineer, or his designee, for review. 2. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 3. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the 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 prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 8. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 406 406 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 13. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official. 14. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 15. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 16. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 407 407 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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 issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). This shall be shown in the typical sections of the grading and drainage plan. 18. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 20. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 21. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 22. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 408 408 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 23. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 24. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 25. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 26. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 27. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 28. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. 29. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 30. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 31. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 32. The Site and Drainage Plan in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall show the locations of all roof downspout drains. if required for storm water quality purposes, the downspouts shall include filters. 33. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 409 409 Project #: DRC2018-00430 Project Name: EDR - DR /// Industrial Building Location: -- - 020901313-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan. 34. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”. 35. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”. 36. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 37. NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and the permitted grading plan set for non-residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2 (and CBC 11B-812.3). NOTE: 10-scale details may be required to show that the parking stall(s) meet the requirements of Chapter 11 of the current adopted California Building Code. 38. NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non-residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3 (and CBC 11B812.3). NOTE: 10-scale details may be required to show that the parking stall(s) meet the requirements of Chapter 11 of the current adopted California Building Code. 39. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 12Printed: 1/15/2020 410 410 Planning Commission Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval for DRC2018-00430 I, Richard Collins, as applicant for Design Review DRC2018-00430, hereby state that I am in agreement with and accept the conditions of approval for Design Review DRC2018-00430, for property located at APN: 0209-013-13, -43, and -44, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on January 22, 2019 and as listed below and attached. Applicant Signature____________________________ Date ______________________________ Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 2. All conditions of approval attached to Resolution of Approval No. 20-01 for Design Review DRC2018-00430. 411 411 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC – A request to subdivide a vacant 39.68-acre site into 8 numbered lots for condominium purposes, for the development of 867 for-rent apartments and 5,000 square feet of live/work commercial space within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Cleveland Avenue. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway; APNs: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, and 0210-102-10. Related Files: Design Review DRC2019-00674 and Pre-Application DRC2019- 00127. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC – A request to develop 867 for-rent apartments and 5,000 square feet of live/work commercial space on a 39.68-acre site within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Cleveland Avenue. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway; APNs: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, and 0210-102-10. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Pre-Application DRC2019-00127. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015- 00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. DATE: January 22, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner, for Vince Acuna, Associate Planner 412 412 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20118 AND DRC2019-00674 – EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT January 22, 2020 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: • Approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Design Review DRC2019-00674 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions with Conditions of Approval, allowing the development of 867 apartments and 5,000 square feet of commercial space within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. PROJECT SITE BACKGROUND: The project site is part of a property of 160 acres that was formerly developed with the privately owned and operated Empire Lakes Golf Course generally located in the center of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan (the “Specific Plan”). The Specific Plan has an overall area of 347 acres and is generally bound by 4th Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to the west, and 8th Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line to the north. The Specific Plan is bisected into south and north halves by 6th Street. The golf course was closed in mid-2016 following the approval by the City Council of amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code (related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015- 00115). These amendments were for the purpose of enabling the master developer, Lewis Management Corp., to develop a new mixed use and transit-oriented project (“Empire Lakes/The Resort”) hereafter referred to as “the overall project”. The overall project is intended to be developed in phases by various developers. The first phase will include all of the southern half and a small portion of the northern half. Three developments have been approved east of the project site, across The Resort Parkway: • On Parcel #4, a 296-unit for-sale condominium development by Van Daele Homes (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT200147 and Design Review DRC2017-00925) was approved by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2018. • On Parcel #5, an 80-unit for-sale detached condominium development by Tri-Pointe Homes (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20240 and Design Review DRC2018-00851) was approved by the Planning Commission on April 10, 2019. • On Parcel #6, a 135-unit for-sale condominium development by The New Home Company (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20241 and Design Review DRC2018-00784) was approved by the Planning Commission on March 13, 2019. PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this project at a Pre-Application Review workshop on August 14, 2019 (Related File: Pre-Application Review DRC2019-00127). The project was regarded highly for its urban feel, gridded street network that encourages walkability, and the diversity of proposed architectural styles. The Planning Commission found that the project was consistent with the intent and vision of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. However, the Commission also recommended that the applicant work with staff to refine the building plotting, pedestrian connections, parking, and the architectural styles of some buildings in the project. 413 413 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20118 AND DRC2019-00674 – EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT January 22, 2020 Following the workshop, the applicant worked diligently with staff to revise and clarify the issues raised during the Planning Commission workshop in preparation for a formal submittal and review by the Design Review Committee (DRC). Some of the issues addressed included identifying and strengthening pedestrian connections, revising building plotting to comply with setbacks, and improving the architecture on several buildings. The applicant formerly submitted the application on October 15, 2019. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site has an area of 39.68 acres with and is bound by 6th street to the north, The Resort Parkway to the east and the Inland Empire Health Plan offices to the west. The site will have a street frontage of roughly 1,200 feet along 6th Street and roughly 2,400 feet along The Resort Parkway, which is primary north-south street through the project. The subject site is currently vacant. A majority of the improvements associated with the former golf course have been removed and the site has been “mass” graded to prepare it for development (Exhibit A). The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant1 Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1) 2 North Vacant Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1 and 11) 2 South Vacant1 Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1) 2 East Multi-Family Residential (Under Construction)1 Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1) 2 West Office Complex Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 2-5) 2 1 - Part of the south half of former private golf course; 2 - Empire Lakes Specific Plan ANALYSIS: A. General – Design Review DRC2019-00674: The Specific Plan is divided into 24 “Placetypes,” 11 of which are located south of 6th Street. The land use characteristics and density of each Placetype are defined by 6 different designations. The location of the project site is within areas S-14 through S-18 and in S-24, which are comprised of Village Neighborhood (VN), Core Living (CL), and Recreation (REC) Placetypes. The project is also partially within the Mixed-Use Overlay along The Resort Parkway. The applicant (LCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC) proposes the development of 867 for-rent apartments ranging from one to three-bedroom units. The project proposes 6 residential building types, ranging from two-story paired homes to three-story 21-plex buildings. A total of 5,000 square-feet of commercial space is also proposed and incorporated as part of the live-work buildings. The 6 residential building types and various architectural themes are outlined in the table below. 414 414 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20118 AND DRC2019-00674 – EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT January 22, 2020 Building Type Units in each Building Stories Architectural Themes Paired Homes 2 2 Contemporary, Spanish Linear Townhomes 7 3 Contemporary, Main Street 6-Plex Stacked Flats 6 2 Spanish, European Heritage 10-Plex Stacked Flats 10 3 Contemporary, Spanish 21-Plex Stacked Flats 21 3 Contemporary, Industrial Live/Work Buildings 4 Live/Work, 1 Commercial 3 Contemporary Linear townhomes are generally plotted along The Resort Parkway frontage, while Live/Work buildings flank the project’s entry driveway along the roundabout on The Resort Parkway. The remaining building types are plotted in a grid-pattern facing interior streets throughout the remainder of the site. Stand-alone garage buildings are proposed within the interior of the blocks. A recreation building with the leasing office and an amenity area is proposed at the project’s northwesterly corner (Exhibit B). The Specific Plan permits different architectural themes throughout Empire Lakes/The Resort. The applicant has proposed several architectural themes noted in the table above. Each proposed architectural style is true to its respective design vernacular, utilizing architecturally appropriate materials, colors, and finishes (Exhibit C). Depending on the building type and location, the apartments will range in size from roughly 800 square feet to roughly 2,000 square feet (Exhibit D). The overall density of the proposed project is 22 dwelling units/acre which meets the required density range of 16-28 du/acre for the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype, and 18-35 du/acre for the Core Living (CL) Placetype. Table 7.1 (Development Program) of the Specific Plan allows for a maximum of 3,450 residential units to be constructed within the overall Master Plan area. Of this amount, 1,450 units are permitted south of 6th Street. The current proposal is for the construction of 867 residential units. In addition to the other three developments approved on the south side of 6th Street (511 residential units), the total number of units approved will be 1,378. This leaves a remainder of 72 residential units that may be constructed south of 6th Street and keeps the overall development in compliance with the Specific Plan. In addition to the residential unit allowance, Table 7.1 also requires a minimum 50,000 square feet of non-residential uses be provided within the Mixed-Use Overlay, with a minimum of 20,000 square feet provided south of 6th Street. The project proposes 5,000 square feet of commercial space that will be integrated as part of the live/work townhomes located along The Resort Parkway. This leaves a minimum 15,000 square feet of non-residential uses still required to be constructed south of 6th Street. The specific plan identifies two areas south of 6th Street that are designated for commercial uses – a 10,000 square-foot pad at the southwest corner of 6th Street and The Resort Parkway, and a 5,000 square-foot pad at the south end of the project site along 4th Street. These two areas will be processed under separate Design Review applications at a future date, however, having these portions set aside for commercial allows the project to remain in compliance with the Specific Plan. Additionally, as part of this project, the commercial pad at the southwest corner of 6th Street and The Resort Parkway will be fully improved with a parking 415 415 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20118 AND DRC2019-00674 – EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT January 22, 2020 lot as part of the residential parking requirements, and additional landscape improvements will be incorporated due to the high visibility and location of this area at a primary entrance. Vehicle access occurs via four driveways, two from The Resort Parkway and two from 6th Street. There are also numerous paseos that run through the project, providing pedestrian access from The Resort Parkway to the east and from the Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) offices to the west. Consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan, the project will be an “open community.” All streets within the interior of the project will be private (maintained by a homeowner’s association), however, these streets will be open to the public. Individual projects within the Specific Plan area are required to provide 150 square feet of a combination of private and common open space per dwelling unit. The project provides 77,381 square feet of private open space and 309,000 square-feet of common open space for a total of 386,381 square feet. This breaks down to 446 square-feet per unit, far exceeding the requirements of the Specific Plan. Proposed amenities identified on the landscape plans (Exhibit E) include the following: • A two-story, 17,600 square-foot clubhouse recreation building • A “Bistro Garden” area adjacent to the recreation building, providing game areas, fire pits, and additional entertainment spaces • A swimming pool area that includes spa and day bed areas, large shade structure, a pool- side bar • A “Public Activity” areas that includes active recreation amenities such as a basketball courts, tennis courts, shuffle board courts, and other social games • A centrally-located dog park, with shade structures and seating • An “Urban Plaza” adjacent to the round-about and commercial spaces, providing seating, eating and gathering spaces under shade trees • Various paseos/green areas providing pedestrian connectivity to the open space areas and throughout the project A 6-foot high tubular steel fence with block pilasters is proposed along the western property line, separating the project site and the IEHP offices. Three ungated pedestrian access points are proposed along this area, allowing free and open access through the site for both IEHP employees and residents of The Resort. Additionally, a combination of a 6-foot high block wall and a 6-foot high tubular steel fence is proposed along the south property line, separating the project site and the vacant property to the south. The pilasters supporting the tubular steel fence are spaced in way that a portion of the fence may be removed to accommodate a future driveway connection south of the project site. The project’s pool area will be enclosed with a 5-foot high tubular steel fence, while the dog park will be enclosed with a 4-foot high powder- coated chain link fence. Additional low walls will be incorporated into the design of the residential units to form private patio areas for the ground floor units. These walls will be designed at a low height, roughly 36 inches, and will be finished in various materials that complements the architectural style of the building. B. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118: The proposed project includes the subdivision of the project site into eight (8) numbered lots for condominium purposes, for the development of 867 for-rent apartments and 5,000 square feet of live/work commercial space within the 416 416 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20118 AND DRC2019-00674 – EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT January 22, 2020 Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1 (Exhibit F). Each lot will help facilitate construction, circulation, and other components of the project. C. Parking: The project will also provide on-site parking for residents and guests. Parking is provided in three forms: a) covered garage spaces; b) tandem, uncovered spaces on driveways leading up to covered garages; and c) street parking along The Resort Parkway and along interior streets within the project. Table 7.6 (Parking Standards) of the Specific Plan states that residential development with a density of 30 units/acre or less shall provide parking consistent with the requirements described in Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code. The project has a proposed density of 22 dwelling units per acre and is made up of 867 for-rent apartment units. As the following parking summary table demonstrates, the project meets all covered and uncovered parking requirements. Unit Type Number of Units or Square Footage Parking Requirement Parking Spaces Required 1 Bedroom 438 units 1.5 spaces/unit* 657 (329 covered) 2 Bedroom 374 units 2 spaces/unit* 748 (374 covered) 3 Bedroom 55 units 2 spaces/unit** 110 (110 covered) Guest N/A 1 per 3 units 289 Commercial 5,000 sq. ft. 4 per 1000 sq. ft. 20 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 1824 (813 covered) TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 1824 (1056 covered) * With 1 in garage or carport **With 2 in garage or carport D. Design Review Committee: The project was presented to DRC (Guglielmo, Williams, and Smith) on December 3, 2019 (Exhibit G). Overall the DRC was very pleased with the project and effort that went into it. DRC inquired about details related to privacy, open space areas, inclusion of bike racks, among others. The applicant clarified elements of the project that addressed these concerns and kept other concerns in consideration when developing the construction plans. DRC recommended the project move forward to Planning Commission for review and approval. E. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015- 00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum dated October 14, 2019 was prepared by T & B Planning (Exhibit H). Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and analysis included in the Final EIR identified above and no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Design Review DRC2019-00674. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which 417 417 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20118 AND DRC2019-00674 – EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT January 22, 2020 would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, nor 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. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed subdivision and construction of the apartments is consistent with the intent of the overall project (Empire Lakes/The Resort) and will contribute to achieving the fiscal benefits that were discussed in the Staff Report for the associated amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code that were approved by the City Council in May/June 2016. The annual revenue generated from, for example, property tax, sales tax, fees, and assessments, and the costs for government services including, for example, police, animal care, community development, public works, and other general government functions were analyzed in a fiscal impact analysis prepared in March 2016. Per that Staff Report, the annual revenues/costs in the calculations in the analysis were based on the overall project when it was fully constructed and completed. The benefits include the project’s contribution to Park District 85 (PD85), Landscape Maintenance District 1 (LMD1), and Street Lighting District 1 (SLD1). These benefits would not occur without implementation of the project. This substantial, additional revenue from the proposed project would reduce the need for General Fund contributions to these assessment districts. Other economic benefits were expected to accrue as a result of the overall project. The EIR certified for the Project identifies the underserved and unmet housing needs in the region. The availability of new housing opportunity allows businesses to grow by providing additional housing for new and existing workers. Providing these housing opportunities in proximity to the City’s business and industrial core will facilitate an environment where individuals who work in the community will also reside in it and support existing businesses. Due to the transit- and pedestrian-oriented approach of the project, environmental costs are lowered, and a healthier environment is created. Furthermore, higher value industrial businesses are increasingly relying on being near a supply of housing for potential employees when determining new locations for their operations. The overall project represents an opportunity to provide the needed housing in rental and price ranges that are affordable to early career workers. Also, an option is created for older residents looking to “downsize” and select a location which requires less driving to reach services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code. The Land Use element within the General Plan (Chapter 2) encourages infill development that facilitates sustainable and attractive development that complements the surrounding neighborhood. The overall project to redevelop what was the Empire Lakes golf course fulfills a current City Council goal of creating villages or development districts to revitalize underperforming or underutilized areas and creates synergy amongst the varying land uses. Upon completion, the overall project (The Resort) will provide housing, offices 418 418 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT20118 AND DRC2019-00674 – EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT January 22, 2020 and commercial land uses that will serve the existing land uses in the surrounding area and wider community. The project also realizes several General Plan land use policies including 1) planning for vibrant, pedestrian-friendly mixed use and high density residential areas at strategic infill locations along transit routes; 2) implementing land use patterns and policies that incorporate smart growth practices, including placement of higher densities near transit centers and along transit corridors; and 3) supporting housing opportunities for workers of all income ranges. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No comments have been received in response to these notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Vicinity Map Exbibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Elevations Exhibit D: Floor Plans Exhibit E: Landscape Plans Exhibit F: Tentative Tract Map 20118 Exhibit G: Design Review Committee Staff Report and Action Agenda with Comments Exhibit H: Environmental Technical Analysis Memo Dated October 14, 2019 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2019-00674 419 419 E mpire L akes7-16 Figure 7.6: Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype E L MetrolinkRancho CucamongaStation 6th Street 7th Street 7th Street South North 4th Street Pocket Park Metrolink San Bernardino Line Pocket Park Urban Plaza The Vine The VineMilliken AveS ECONDARY E NTRY S ECONDARY E NTRY S ECONDARY E NTRY Placetype L egend Village Neighborhood (VN) Recreation (REC) MU Overlay Core Living (CL) Urban Neighborhood (UN) Mixed Use (MU) Transit (T) Not e: Fi gur e not t o s cale. Homecoming at the Resort Exhibit A 420 420 80 Spaces Total (34 spaces dedicated to Residential)UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP 45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45° 45° 15° 45° 45°45° 45° 15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45°FX2640TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT 2'-6"FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT UP FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX4040TYPEWIDTH HEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 07A FX2040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 2'-6"FX40 40TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT FX4040TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX4040TYPEWID T HHEIGHTFX4040TYPEWIDTH HEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTH HEIGHT FX3040TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTH HEIGHTFX4040 TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX 40 40TYPEWIDTH HEIGHTMTL.REVERSE TEXT HEIGHTWIDTH TYPEDOORTEXTFLIP MTL.REVERSE TEXT HEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOORTEXTFLIP MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOOR TEXTFLIPTYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 3070 30 70 3070 30703070 30703070HEATERSPA337K BTUHEATERWADER337K BTUPANEL CLEARANCEELECTRICALPOOLH O2POOL & SALT GENERATORCLEARANCESANDTR-140CFILTERSPA SANDTR-140CFILTE RPOOL SANDTR-140CFILTERPOOLSANDTR-140CFILTERWADER SANDTR-140 C FILTE R WETPLAYSANDTR-14 0 C FILTERWETP L A Y SAND TR-1 4 0 C FILTE RPOOL HEATERPOOL407K BTUHEATERPOOL407K BTUHEATERPOOL407K BTUP A R K W A YT H E R E S O R T THE RESORT PARKWAYCLEVELAND AVENUEFUTURE COMMERCIAL 10,000 SF LEASING AMENITY AREA UP UP UPUP UPUPUPUPUP UPUP UP UP UP 45°15°45° 45° 45° 45°15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45°45° 45°15° 45°45° 45°45° 15°45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45° 45°15° 45° 45°45° 45° 15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45°45° 15° 45°45°15° 45° 45° 45° 45°15° 45°45° 45°45° 15° 45° 45° 45°45° 45°15° 45°45° 45°45° 15°45° 45° 45° 45° 15° 45° FX2640TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 2'-6"FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT UP FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 07A FX2040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 2'-6"FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWI D T H HE I G H TFX4040TY P E WI D T H HE I G H TFX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOORTEXTFLIP MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOORTEXTFLIP MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOOR TEXTFLIP TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 3070 3070 3070 3070 3070 3070 3070HEATERSPA337K BTUHEATERWADER337K BTU PANELCLEARANCE ELECTRICALPOOL H O2 POOL & SALT GEN E R A TOR CLEARANCE SANDTR-140CFILTERSPA SANDTR-140CFILTERPOOL SANDTR-140CFILTERPOOL SANDTR-140C FILTERWADER SANDTR-140CFILTERWETPLAY SANDTR-140C FILTERWETPLAY SANDTR-140CFILTERPOOL HEATERPOOL407K BTU HEATERPOOL407K BTU HEATERPOOL407K BTU P A R K W A YT H E R E S O R T 0 60 12030 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 DRC SUBMITTAL SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 LCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 21 Plex Stacked Flats Garage Buildings Paired Homes Linear Townhomes 6 Plex Stacked Flats Live-Work-Shop Recreation-Leasing 10 Plex Stacked Flats Product Color Legend 0 300 600150 Key Map / Sheet Legend S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE S-2SITE PLAN SITE PLAN OVERALL Adjusted to 24' Parallel Stalls Scale: 1" = 60'-0" eXHIBIT b Exhibit B 421 421 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-1PERSPECTIVES21 PLEX STACKED FLATSCONTEMPORARYINDUSTRIALMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Metal Railing5. Masonry Veneer6. Decorative AwningContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional or contemporaryaccent colors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material defining colors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrasting traditional orcontemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalanced windowplacement.163542Material Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Metal Siding4. Metal Railing5. Masonry Veneer6. Metal AwningIndustrial Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned or detailed parapet walls.B. Projections or wall planes articulate facade with simple,unadorned forms.C. Contrasting form and / or material defining colors consisting ofstucco, metal, or fiber cement siding.D. Minimal window trims with contrasting neutral tones.E. Bold, contemporary accent colors.F. Enhanced brick wall veneer.G. Cantilevered deck projections.H. Enhanced horizontal banding between floors.I. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.J. Enhanced metal balcony railings.ABHIJGFDEC123541BDEFAC66AExhibit C422422 Front Elevation9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-9" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3CONTEMPORARY123541Material Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Metal Railing5. Masonry Veneer6. Decorative AwningContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadornedparapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrastingtraditional or contemporary accentcolors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and/ or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / ormaterial defining colors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim incontrasting traditional orcontemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked orpurposely unbalanced windowplacement.BDEFACP2P4P4P266Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860248A-2ELEVATIONS21 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"423423 Front Elevation9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-9" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3CONTEMPORARYLeft ElevationRoof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"NOTE:1. Refer to cut sheet for specificlight fixture design.2. All AC condensers to bescreened from view behindparapet walls.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-3BUILDING ELEVATIONS21 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"424424 Right ElevationRear ElevationCONTEMPORARYProposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-4BUILDING ELEVATIONS21 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"425425 Front ElevationINDUSTRIAL163542Material Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Metal Siding4. Metal Railing5. Masonry Veneer6. Metal AwningIndustrial Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned ordetailed parapet walls.B. Projections or wall planes articulatefacade with simple, unadorned forms.C. Contrasting form and / or materialdefining colors consisting of stucco,metal, or fiber cement siding.D. Minimal window trims with contrastingneutral tones.E. Bold, contemporary accent colors.F. Enhanced brick wall veneer.G. Cantilevered deck projections.H. Enhanced horizontal banding betweenfloors.I. Enhanced metal awnings oroverhangs.J. Enhanced metal balcony railings.AABHIJGFDEC9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-1" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3P2P4P4P2Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860248A-5ELEVATIONS21 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"426426 Front Elevation9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-1" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3INDUSTRIALLeft ElevationRoof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"NOTE:1. Refer to cut sheet for specificlight fixture design.2. All AC condensers to bescreened from view behindparapet walls.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-6BUILDING ELEVATIONS21 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"427427 Right ElevationRear ElevationINDUSTRIALProposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-7BUILDING ELEVATIONS21 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"428428 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-9PERSPECTIVES10 PLEX STACKED FLATSSPANISHCONTEMPORARY133415Material Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof Tile6. Decorative Tile7. Decorative Shutter8. Decorative Metal Awning9. Decorative Stucco Detail10.Precast Concrete Trim214Spanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Tight rake, where used.C. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.D. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.E. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.F. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.G. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.H. Vertically proportioned windows.ABCDEFGHContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material definingcolors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrastingtraditional or contemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalancedwindow placement.ABCDF25Material Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Masonry Veneer5. Metal RailingE671089429429 Front Elevation9'-1"9'-1" ±37'-6" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3SPANISHFront Elevation9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-9" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3CONTEMPORARYMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof Tile6. Decorative Tile7. Decorative Shutter8. Decorative Metal Awning9. Decorative Stucco Detail1334115214Spanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Tight rake, where used.C. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.D. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.E. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.F. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.G. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.H. Vertically proportioned windows.ABCDEFGHContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material definingcolors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrastingtraditional or contemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalancedwindow placement.ABCDF25Material Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. CMU Wall5. Metal RailingP2P2P5P2P2P5E6897Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860 2 48A-10ELEVATIONS10 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"430430 Front Elevation9'-1"9'-1" ±37'-6" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3SPANISHRear ElevationRight ElevationLeft ElevationRoof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"3:123:12 3:12 NOTE:1. Refer to cut sheet for specificlight fixture design.2. All AC condensers to bescreened from view behindparapet walls.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-11BUILDING ELEVATIONS10 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"431431 Front Elevation9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-10" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3CONTEMPORARYRear ElevationRight ElevationLeft ElevationRoof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"NOTE:1. Refer to cut sheet for specificlight fixture design.2. All AC condensers to bescreened from view behindparapet walls.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-12BUILDING ELEVATIONS10 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"432432 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-15PERSPECTIVESLINEAR TOWNHOMESMAIN STREETCONTEMPORARYMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Brick Veneer4. Metal Awning5. Metal Railing6. Fiber Cement Siding1315211361AABHIGFDECContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned or detailed parapet walls.B. Projections or wall planes articulate facade with simple,unadorned forms.C. Contrasting form and / or material defining colors consistingof stucco, metal, or fiber cement siding.D. Minimal window trims with contrasting neutral tones.E. Bold, contemporary accent colors.F. Enhanced wood wall veneer.G. Cantilevered deck projections.H. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.I. Enhanced metal balcony railings.Main Street Style ElementsA. Flat roof with cornice to unify facade.B. Stucco with accent materials (brick vaneer, metal).C. Window Awnings with contrasting neutral tones.D. Enhanced brick wall veneer.E. Balconies.F. 'Storefront' form entriesG. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.H. Enhanced metal balcony railings.245BDEHGCFMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Metal Awning5. Metal Railing42433433 9'-1"9'-1" ±37'-7" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3Material Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Brick Veneer4. Metal Awning5. Metal Railing6. Fiber Cement SidingFront ElevationCONTEMPORARYFront ElevationMAIN STREET9'-1"9'-1" ±37'-2" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 31315211361AABHIGFDECContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned or detailedparapet walls.B. Projections or wall planes articulate facade withsimple, unadorned forms.C. Contrasting form and / or material defining colorsconsisting of stucco, metal, or fiber cementsiding.D. Minimal window trims with contrasting neutraltones.E. Bold, contemporary accent colors.F. Enhanced wood wall veneer.G. Cantilevered deck projections.H. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.I. Enhanced metal balcony railings.Main Street Style ElementsA. Flat roof with cornice to unify facade.B. Stucco with accent materials (brick vaneer,metal).C. Window Awnings with contrasting neutral tones.D. Enhanced brick wall veneer.E. Balconies.F. 'Storefront' form entriesG. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.H. Enhanced metal balcony railings.245BDEHGCFMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Metal Awning5. Metal Railing4B1B4B2B2B4A1A3B1B4B2B2B4A1A3Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860 2 48A-16ELEVATIONSLINEAR TOWNHOMESScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"434434 Right ElevationRear ElevationLeft ElevationFront ElevationMAIN STREET9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-2" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3Roof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"NOTE:1. Refer to cut sheet for specificlight fixture design.2. All AC condensers to bescreened from view behindparapet walls.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-17BUILDING ELEVATIONSLINEAR TOWNHOMESScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"435435 Rear ElevationRight ElevationLeft ElevationFront ElevationCONTEMPORARY9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-7" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3Roof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"NOTE:1. Refer to cut sheet for specificlight fixture design.2. All AC condensers to bescreened from view behindparapet walls.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-18BUILDING ELEVATIONSLINEAR TOWNHOMESScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"436436 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-22PERSPECTIVES6 PLEX STACKED FLATSSPANISHEUROPEAN HERITAGE134521154Spanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Tight rake, where used.C. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.D. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.E. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.F. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.G. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.H. Vertically proportioned windows.ACDEFGHEuropean Heritage Style ElementsA. Main roof hip or gable with intersecting gable with pitches6:12 to 12:12 where applicable.B. Flat concrete tile roof in cool tones.C. Stucco finish wall materials in medium light to mediumvalue subdued hues of taupe, warm gray, yellow and greenand warm-toned whites.D. Siding accents (horizontal or vertical) at enhanced areas.E. Appropriately sized and minimally detailed trim and detailsin warm tones of gray, blue gray, brown and gray-green, inmedium to dark value.F. Window grid on all upper levels.ACBDEFMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Decorative Tile4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof Tile623Material Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Brick Veneer5. Metal Railing6. Concrete Flat Roof Tile437437 Front Elevation9'-1" ±30'-2" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2SPANISHFront Elevation9'-1" ±32'-0" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2EUROPEAN HERITAGE134521154Spanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Tight rake, where used.C. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.D. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.E. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.F. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.G. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.H. Vertically proportioned windows.ACDEFGHEuropean Heritage Style ElementsA. Main roof hip or gable with intersecting gable with pitches6:12 to 12:12 where applicable.B. Flat concrete slate tile roof in cool tones of natural slate.C. Stucco finish wall materials in medium light to mediumvalue subdued hues of taupe, warm gray, yellow and greenand warm-toned whites.D. Siding accents (horizontal or vertical) at enhanced areas.E. Appropriately sized and minimally detailed trim and detailsin warm tones of gray, blue gray, brown and gray-green, inmedium to dark value.F. Window grid on all upper levels.ACBDEFMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Decorative Tile4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof Tile623Material Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Brick Veneer5. Metal Railing6. Concrete Flat Roof Tile1DF1DF1EC1EC1DF1DF1EC1ECArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860 2 48A-23ELEVATIONS6 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"438438 Front Elevation9'-1" ±30'-1" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2SPANISHRear ElevationRight ElevationLeft ElevationRoof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-24BUILDING ELEVATIONS6 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"439439 Front Elevation9'-1" ±32'-0" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2EUROPEAN HERITAGERear ElevationRight ElevationLeft ElevationRoof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:124:124:12Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-25BUILDING ELEVATIONS6 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"440440 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-28PERSPECTIVESSMALL PAIRED HOMESCONTEMPORARY BCONTEMPORARY A1624Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. Stucco Trim4. Metal Railing5. Metal Awning6. CMU Wall3Contemporary B Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Contrasting form and / or material defining colors consistingof stucco, metal, or fiber cement siding.C. Minimal window trims with contrasting neutral tones.D. Bold, contemporary accent colors.E. Enhanced wood-look veneer.F. Cantilevered deck projections.G. Enhanced metal balcony railings.BCDEFGA12354Contemporary A Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material definingcolors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrastingtraditional or contemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalancedwindow placement.G. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.BDA6Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. CMU Wall4. Stucco Trim5. Metal Railing6. Metal AwningGFCE441441 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-29PERSPECTIVESLARGE PAIRED HOMESSPANISHMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof Tile6. Decorative TileSpanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.C. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.D. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.E. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.F. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.G. Vertically proportioned windows.1243BCDEFGA56442442 Front ElevationCONTEMPORARY SCHEME 1Front ElevationCONTEMPORARY SCHEME 29'-1" ±26'-6" 9'-1"Level 1Level 29'-1" ±27'-9" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2123541624Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. Stucco Trim4. Metal Railing5. Metal Awning6. CMU Wall3Contemporary B Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Contrasting form and / or material defining colors consistingof stucco, metal, or fiber cement siding.C. Minimal window trims with contrasting neutral tones.D. Bold, contemporary accent colors.E. Enhanced wood-look veneer.F. Cantilevered deck projections.G. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.H. Enhanced metal balcony railings.Contemporary A Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material definingcolors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrastingtraditional or contemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalancedwindow placement.BDABCDEFGHA56Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. CMU Wall4. Stucco Trim5. Metal Railing6. Metal AwningMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof TileSpanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.C. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.D. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.E. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.F. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.G. Vertically proportioned windows.Front ElevationSPANISH9'-1" ±27'-6" 9'-1"Level 1Level 21243BCDEFGA5LAKEHURSTNEWPORTC1C2C1C2Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860 2 48A-30ELEVATIONSPAIRED HOMESScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"443443 Front ElevationCONTEMPORARY ARear ElevationRight ElevationLeft Elevation9'-1" ±26'-7" 9'-1"Level 2Roof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"Note: Patio wall of adjacent unit when occurs.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-31BUILDING ELEVATIONSPAIRED HOMESScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"444444 Front ElevationCONTEMPORARY BRear ElevationRight ElevationLeft Elevation9'-1" ±27'-9" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Roof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"2.5:122.5:12Note: Patio wall of adjacent unit when occurs.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-32BUILDING ELEVATIONSPAIRED HOMESScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"445445 Front ElevationSPANISHRear ElevationRight ElevationLeft Elevation9'-1" ±27'-7" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Roof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"3:123:12 3:12Note: Patio wall of adjacent unit when occurs.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-33BUILDING ELEVATIONSPAIRED HOMESScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"446446 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-36PERSPECTIVESLIVE WORK SHOPCONTEMPORARY11123Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. Stucco Trim4. Metal Railing5. Metal Awning4Contemporary Style ElementsA. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.B. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.C. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material definingcolors.D. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrastingtraditional or contemporary colors.E. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalancedwindow placement.F. Bold, contemporary accent colors.G. Enhanced wood wall veneer.H. Cantilevered deck projections.I. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.J. Enhanced metal balcony railings.CDEFGHIBAJ5447447 9'-1"9'-1" ±47'-6" 10'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3Front ElevationCONTEMPORARY8'-1"Level 411123Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. Stucco Trim4. Metal Railing5. Metal Awning4Contemporary Style ElementsA. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.B. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.C. Contrasting form wall colors and / or materialdefining colors.D. Minimal or exaggerated window trim incontrasting traditional or contemporary colors.E. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposelyunbalanced window placement.F. Bold, contemporary accent colors.G. Enhanced wood wall veneer.H. Cantilevered deck projections.I. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.J. Enhanced metal balcony railings.CDEFGHIBAJ5Live WorkLive WorkLive WorkLive WorkRetailArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860 2 48A-37ELEVATIONSLIVE WORK SHOPScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"448448 Right ElevationRear ElevationLeft ElevationFront ElevationLIVE WORK SHOP9'-1"9'-1" ±47'-6" 10'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 38'-1"Level 4Roof Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"NOTE:1. Refer to cut sheet for specificlight fixture design.2. All AC condensers to bescreened from view behindparapet walls.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Proposed/Conceptual locationof building numbers.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786048 12A-38BUILDING ELEVATIONSLIVE WORK SHOPScale: 3/16" = 1'-0"449449 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-41BUILDING ELEVATIONSCLUBHOUSE & LEASING CENTERView of Fitness From Pool AreaView of Pool AreaView of Main Building EntryView of Outdoor Patio450450 13'-1" ±34'-0" 10'-6"Level 1Level 2Front ElevationRear ElevationLeft ElevationRight Elevation10'-1"13'-1"Level 1Level 211'-1"Level 116'-3"Level 115'-1"20'-7" ±34'-0" 13'-1" ±34'-0"±24'-1" 10'-1"Level 213'-1"Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860 4 816A-42BUILDING ELEVATIONSCLUBHOUSE & LEASING CENTERScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"451451 Front Elevation±15'-0" 8'-1"Level 1CONTEMPORARYRear ElevationLeft ElevationRight Elevation42'-0"107'-6"GARAGE FLOOR PLANGARAGE ROOF PLANGARAGE PERSPECTIVE3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12MAINTENANCE ROOF PLAN3:12 3:12 MAINTENANCE PERSPECTIVEFront ElevationLeft ElevationRight ElevationRear ElevationMAINTENANCE FLOOR PLANCONTEMPORARY±14'-10" 10'-1"Level 124'-0"42'-0"11'-1"TRASH ENCLOSUREPER SITE LOCATIONStorage125 SF Min.10'-4 3/4"TYP.20'-3 3/4" TYP. 20'-3 3/4" TYP.10'-8 1/2"TYP.Storage125 SF Min.Storage125 SF Min.Storage125 SF Min.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860 4 816A-45BUILDING ELEVATIONS & PLANSGARAGE & MAINTENANCEScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"452452 First FloorSecond FloorThird Floor63'-5"162'-3" 162'-3"63'-5"162'-3"63'-5"P2P4P4P2P2P4P3P3P4P2P1P2P3P4P2P3P4P19074 SQ. FT. GROSS9074 SQ. FT. GROSS8792 SQ. FT. GROSSP2P2P20 4 816Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-8BUILDING PLANS21 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Exhibit D453453 84'-0"64'-3"86'-4"66'-11"86'-4"66'-11"First FloorSecond FloorThird FloorP2P2P2P2P2P3P3P5P5P25196 SQ. FT. GROSS5195 SQ. FT. GROSS4984 SQ. FT. GROSS0 4 816Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-13BUILDING PLANS10 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"454454 34'-8" 25'-0"36'-2"M. Bedroom13'-9"x13'-0"CoatM. BathGreat Room14'-7"x13'-0"Lau.W.I.C.KitchenGreat Room12'-6"x18'-7"FoyerM. BathW.I.C.M. Bedroom11'-4"x12'-2"Bedroom 211'-2"x12'-2"W.I.C.M. BathW.I.C.M. Bedroom11'-11"x12'-2"Bedroom 210'-8"x10'-10"Lau.Great Room20'-6"x13'-1"M. Bedroom11'-5"x12'-3"Unit P21 Bed / 1 Bath829 SQ. FT. Gross73 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceGreat Room12'-1"x21'-2"Unit P11 Bed / 1 Bath765 SQ. FT. Gross60 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceM. Bedroom11'-2"x13'-4"Unit P32 Bed / 2 Bath1035 SQ. FT. Gross54 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceUnit P42 Bed / 2 Bath1098 SQ. FT. Gross50 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceUnit P53 Bed / 2 Bath1528 SQ. FT. Gross79 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceKitchenM. BathBalcony12'-0"x6'-6"73 SQ. FT.Balcony8'-6"x7'-6"60 SQ. FT.Stor.Balcony8'-2"x6'-1"50 SQ. FT.Stor.Balcony8'-9"x6'-2"54 SQ. FT.Balcony6'-7"x12'-1"79 SQ. FT.W.I.C.Lau.Bath 2KitchenPan.Lin.Pan.Pan.Pan.Lin.Lin.WHCoatLin.WHWHWHStor.3'-11 1/2"8'-0"4'-0 1/2"4'-4"6'-0"3'-11"2'-0"7'-0"6'-0"3'-1"6'-8 1/2"2'-0"6'-6"2'-0"7'-9 1/2"3'-7 1/2"7'-2 1/2"3'-8"1'-10 1/2"6'-0"1'-8"3'-1"6'-0"3'-0 1/2"3'-9"7'-11 3/4"7'-0 1/4"8'-0"3'-4 1/2"4'-4"6'-0"3'-0 1/2"6'-0"4'-6 1/2"25'-6"48'-4"4'-3"2'-0"11'-11 1/2"2'-0"5'-7"2'-0"2'-10 1/2"1'-0" 31'-8"30'-1 1/2"25'-7"KitchenPan.M. BathW.I.C.Lau.Stor.Lin.WH3'-9"8'-0"3'-5 1/2"6'-0"3'-0"6'-0"2'-11 1/2"7'-2"2'-0"16'-5"33'-2"CoatKitchenM. BathLau.6'-8"Lin.25'-6"1'-2"2'-1"2'-0"1'-2"8'-5 1/2"3'-0"7'-7 1/2"3'-0"1'-11 1/2"28'-1" 33'-10" 9 1/2" 64'-3"Stor.Bedroom 310'-5"x11'-0"Bedroom 212'-9"x11'-11"W.I.C.Bath 23'-11 1/2"7'-11 1/2"3'-11 1/2"2'-8 1/2"6'-0"9'-1"1'-9 1/2"2'-0"6'-4"2'-0"7'-4 3/4"2'-0"2'-5 3/4"23'-7 1/2"6'-4 1/2"34'-3"30'-11 1/2"5'-2 1/2"0 2 48Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-14UNIT PLANS3 STORY STACKED FLATSScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"455455 First FloorSecond FloorThird Floor5293 SQ. FT. GROSS47'-0"118'-11"48'-6"118'-11"46'-6"84'-8"B2B4B1B2A3A1B4B2B4B1B2 B4 ELECTRICAL B2B4B1B2A3A1B40 4 816Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-19BUILDING PLANSLINEAR TOWNHOMESScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"456456 Unit A1 - First Floor158 SQ. FT.Unit A1 - Second Floor692 SQ. FT.Unit B1 - First Floor104 SQ. FT.Unit B1 - Second Floor754 SQ. FT.Unit B1 - Third Floor784 SQ. FT.47'-0"16'-0"47'-0"16'-0"44'-6"19'-2"44'-6"19'-7 1/2"44'-6"19'-2 1/2"Unit B12 Bed / 2.5 Bath1642 SQ. FT. Gross87 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceUnit A11 Bed / 1 Bath850 SQ. FT. Gross45 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceLau.M. Bedroom14'-7"x12'-6"M. Bedroom11'-2"x14'-9"CoatM.BathW.I.C.Garage43'-7"x18'-5"M. BathDining8'-4"x7'-9"Great Room14'-2"x11'-8"KitchenW.I.C.Bath 2Garage39'-4"x15'-2"WHLau.Balcony7'-7"x6'-2"45 SQ. FT.FoyerWHBalcony19'-6"x4'-10"87 SQ. FT.Great Room15'-11"x14'-7"PowderKitchenCoatW.I.C.Lin.Bedroom 212'-8"x13'-0"Lin.Pan.Pan.10"2'-0"6'-1 1/2"4'-9 1/2"3'-0"3'-3"5'-1"8'-6"5'-7"8'-9 1/2"2'-0"9'-10 1/2"3'-0"5'-9"3'-0"10" 4'-3 1/2"6"3'-0"18'-5 1/2"4'-11 3/4" 11'-3 1/2"16'-2 1/2"6'-0"1'-6"8'-0"1'-6"Dining11'-10"x9'-10"3'-0"3'-0"5'-7"6"3'-9"3'-0"3'-0"2'-0 1/2"3'-6"3'-6 1/2"3'-0"3'-11"6 1/2"3 1/2"3'-7 1/2"3'-0"2'-0 1/2"3'-0"6"3'-0"4'-4"3'-0"3'-0"5'-2"6"8'-6"5'-2"2'-4"Lin.2'-1 1/2"3'-0"6"3'-0"6"3'-0"5'-0 1/2"19'-2"2'-1 1/2"3'-0"6"3'-0"2'-9 1/2"17'-2"2'-0"3'-9"2'-0"2'-8"3'-6"4'-5 1/2"1'-4 1/2"19'-2"3'-0"2'-2"16'-0"16'-0"11'-3" 11'-3"W.I.C.Storage125 SF Min.Storage125 SF Min.15'-5"39'-3 1/2"16'-4 207/256"43'-7"0 2 48Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-20UNIT PLANSLINEAR TOWNHOMESScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"457457 Unit A3 - First Floor459 SQ. FT.Unit A3 - Second Floor781 SQ. FT.Unit B2 - First Floor98 SQ. FT.Unit B2 - Second Floor661 SQ. FT.Unit B2 - Third Floor666 SQ. FT.Unit B4 - First Floor92 SQ. FT.Unit B4 - Second Floor627 SQ. FT.Unit B4 - Third Floor688 SQ. FT.47'-0"18'-1"48'-6"18'-3"44'-6" 44'-6" 44'-6"16'-0"16'-2"16'-0"16'-6"16'-6"16'-6"44'-6 31/64" 44'-6" 44'-6"Unit B42 Bed / 2.5 Bath1407 SQ. FT. Gross102 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceUnit B22 Bed / 2.5 Bath1425 SQ. FT. Gross64 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceUnit A31 Bed / 1.5 Bath1240 SQ. FT. Gross53 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceM. BathKitchenGreat Room12'-10"x16'-1"Balcony9'-8"x6'-2"53 SQ. FT.W.I.C.Garage20'-8"x17'-4"WHDen15'-5"x13'-6"Garage43'-7"x15'-3"Garage43'-7"x15'-7"KitchenStor.Lau.Bath 2W.I.C.M. BathW.I.C.M. Bedroom11'-6"x12'-6"Balcony9'-6"x7'-0"64 SQ. FT.Great Room16'-11"x15'-3"PowderDining11'-4"x11'-10"CoatLau.Bedroom 211'-7"x11'-11"W.I.C.M. BathW.I.C.M. Bedroom12'-0"x12'-6"KitchenGreat Room25'-9"x11'-10"PowderCoatWHWHLau.Lin.Lin.Lin.Lin.Pan.Pan.Pan.4'-10 1/256"3'-0"5'-2 1/2"5'-3 1/2"8'-6"5'-3 1/2"2'-1 127/256"3'-0"6"3'-0"7'-10 129/256"2'-1 1/2"3'-0"6"3'-0"1'-11"3'-7 127/256"3'-6"5'-3 129/256"3'-0"11"2'-8"3'-6"5'-5 1/2"3'-0"1'-5 1/2"2'-6 1/2"2'-0"3'-11 1/2"1'-2"3'-0"6"3'-0"5'-0"1'-6"3'-0"6"1'-6"8'-6"6'-0"1'-6"3'-0"11'-8"3'-5"2'-0"4'-5"3'-6"3'-0"2'-11"3'-0"1'-7 1/2"3'-6"4'-4 1/2"4'-4"3'-0"3'-0"4'-4"8'-6"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"1'-5 1/2" 3'-0"3'-0"6"3'-0"12'-8"2'-0"10'-8"12'-2"6'-0"1'-5"6"1'-10"4'-8"2'-0"3'-11 1/2"3'-0"8'-2 17/32"2'-8 1/2"3'-0"5 127/256"3'-0"8'-0"Balcony16'-1"x6'-10"102 SQ. FT.3'-0"6"3'-0"1'-2"Bedroom 211'-4"x15'-0"6"3'-0"1'-3"2'-3"5'-2 1/2"3'-0"1'-0"16'-3"3'-0"6'-1"Stor.6"2'-2"6"Bath 2M. Bedroom13'-6 1/2"x14'-8"Storage125 SF Min.Storage125 SF Min.Storage125 SF Min.43'-7"15'-3"43'-7"15'-7"15'-1"20'-8"0 2 48Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-21UNIT PLANSLINEAR TOWNHOMESScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"458458 First FloorSecond Floor1EC1DF1DF1DF3997 SQ. FT. GROSS89'-7"51'-2" 53'-0"91'-7"1EC1DF0 4 816Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-26BUILDING PLANS6 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"459459 Garage10'-3"x20'-7"M. Bedroom8'-6"x7'-6"Lin.M. BathW.I.C.KitchenM. Bedroom15'-1"x12'-0"W.I.C.KitchenGreat Room20'-11"x12'-4"M. BathLau.Lau.M. Bedroom13'-3"x12'-4"Great Room15'-11"x13'-4"Dining10'-1"x8'-11"KitchenM. BathFoyer32'-6"40'-11"18'-7"21'-4"45'-8 1/2"23'-2"Unit 1EC Second Floor1 Bed / 1 Bath872 SQ. FT. Gross145 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceUnit 1DF First Floor1 Bed+Den / 1 Bath896 SQ. FT. Gross152 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceUnit 1DF Second Floor1 Bed+Den / 1 Bath906 SQ. FT. Gross115 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceBalcony18'-6"x8'-9"152 SQ. FT.Balcony18'-7"x6'-3"115 SQ. FT.Lin.Stor.Balcony15'-3"x10'-8"145 SQ. FT.Great Room20'-11"x12'-4"Lau.Pan.Pan.F.A.U.Pan.WHWHWHStor.1'-10"2'-0"7'-3"2'-0"6'-11"2'-0"1'-2"1'-10 1/2"4'-9 3/4"2'-0"4'-9 3/4"5'-2 3/4"6'-0"5'-6 3/4"3'-5 1/2"6'-0"2'-10 1/2"2'-7"8'-6"9 1/2"2'-0"3'-0"6'-3"10'-1"14'-6"3'-6"5'-2 1/2"4'-3 1/2"1'-0"4'-5 1/2"2'-0"3'-4 1/2"6"3'-0"6" 29'-6 1/2"40'-11"14'-6"3'-6"5'-2 1/2"6'-0"4'-3 1/2"3'-6"4'-4"2'-0"3'-4"6 1/2"3'-0"16'-4"CoatW.I.C.3'-0"3'-8 1/2"15'-7 1/2"22'-3 1/2"3'-0"6'-0"17'-8"1'-0"3'-11"1'-0"2'-6"2'-6"5'-10"23'-10"2'-0 1/2"Unit 1EC First Floor141 SQ. FT.0 2 48Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-27UNIT PLANS6 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"460460 Unit C1 - First Floor433 SQ. FT.Private Open Space120 SQ. FT.Unit C2 - First Floor461 SQ. FT.Private Open Space83 SQ. FT.Unit C1- Second Floor856 SQ. FT.Private Open Space121 SQ. FT.Unit C2 - Second Floor891 SQ. FT.Unit C12 Bed / 2 Bath1289 SQ. FT. GrossUnit C22 Bed / 2.5 Bath1352 SQ. FT. GrossLau.Lin.Bath 2Bedroom 211'-0"x12'-5"M. Bedroom13'-0"x14'-6"M. BathW.I.C.PowderKitchenGreat Room11'-0"x16'-2"Garage21'-0"x19'-5"Balcony19'-7"x6'-3"121 SQ. FT.W.I.C.M. BathM. Bedroom12'-2"x14'-6"W.I.C.Lau.Great Room17'-5"x12'-11"Lin.Garage20'-1"x21'-11"KitchenPan.Stor.W.I.C.Patio21'-3"x5'-9"120 SQ. FT.Bedroom 212'-8"x11'-8"Bath 2Pan.Patio5'-5"x15'-4"83 SQ. FT.43'-1"44'-3" 47'-8"43'-1"47'-7 1/2" 44'-3"Lin.1'-5"10'-0"6'-0"14'-5"10'-0" 2'-0"6'-4 1/2"3'-0"10'-0 1/2"3'-0"1'-5"9'-5"3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"1'-0"1'-0" 1'-11"3'-0"1'-6"6'-4 1/2"6'-0"4'-10"1'-0"7'-3"3'-0"6"5'-0"2'-0"3'-0"3'-6"3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"3'-2"6'-0"1'-8"4'-0"3'-0"1'-8"5'-2"1'-0"6'-0"3'-2"5'-4"3'-0"4'-3 1/2"6'-0"3'-5 1/2"4'-0"3'-2"5'-2 129/256"3'-0"4'-5"6'-0"3'-5 1/2"17'-10 1/2"16'-9"10"6'-0"1'-9 1/2"1'-0"5'-7 1/2"2'-6"16'-0"2'-11 1/2"16'-0"41'-3"6'-5"Storage125 SF Min.Storage125 SF Min.21'-0"19'-5"20'-1"19'-4"0 2 48Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-34UNIT PLANSSMALL PAIRED HOMESScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"461461 45'-5 1/2"48'-8"47'-3 47/64"Lakehurst - First Floor461 SQ. FT.Private Open Space136 SQ. FT.Newport - First Floor574 SQ. FT.Lakehurst- Second Floor938 SQ. FT.Private Open Space131 SQ. FT.Newport - Second Floor1023 SQ. FT.45'-3"48'-8"45'-3"Lakehurst2 Bed / 2.5 Bath1399 SQ. FT. GrossNewport3 Bed / 2.5 Bath1597 SQ. FT. GrossGreat Room23'-3"x12'-5"KitchenBedroom 310'-0"x13'-9"W.I.C.Lau.Patio21'-8"x6'-4"136 SQ. FT.Lin.CoatBath 2Bedroom 210'-9"x10'-9"M. Bedroom14'-1"x21'-1"Lin.CoatM. BathLin.M. Bedroom14'-9"x12'-0"Bedroom 215'-1"x11'-8"W.I.C.Bath 2Stor.PowderM. BathLin.W.I.C.PowderKitchenGreat Room19'-10"x12'-4"Lau.Garage23'-3"x20'-4"Garage23'-5"x20'-4"Balcony21'-6"x6'-1"131 SQ. FT.WHWHPan.17'-1 1/2"2'-0"1'-0 1/2"Stor.2'-0"11'-11 1/2"16'-0"16'-0"6'-8"6'-0"4'-0 1/2"3'-0"11'-1"3'-0"3'-3 1/2"3'-3 1/2"6'-0"4'-3"2'-3 1/2"6'-0"1'-2 1/2"3'-6 1/2"3'-0"11'-1"3'-0"3'-3 1/2"3'-0"5'-5 1/2"14'-3 1/2"2'-4"10'-3"2'-0"7'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-8"2'-0"4'-8 1/2" 2'-0"2 1/2"6'-0"1'-1"3'-0"2'-0"4'-8 1/2"6'-2"5'-9 1/2"2'-0"2'-11"5'-11"2'-0"10 1/2"6'-5 47/64"48'-8"3'-0"5'-7 1/2"3'-0"2'-11"2'-1"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"2'-2"4'-5"48'-8"6'-7"38'-8"10'-3"2 1/2"6'-0"3'-0"4'-0"6'-0"Storage125 SF Min.19'-5 1/2"Storage125 SF Min.19'-9 1/2"20'-4" 20'-4"0 2 48Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-35UNIT PLANSLARGE PAIRED HOMESScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"462462 First FloorThird Floor45'-2"116'-11"46'-2"116'-11"Second FloorRoof Level45'-2"85'-10"Non-Residential1265 SQ. FT. GrossOpen to Below4977 SQ. FT. GROSS0 4 816Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-39BUILDING PLANSLIVE WORK SHOPScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"463463 First Floor483 SQ. FT.Non-Residential SpaceSecond Floor848 SQ. FT.Third Floor917 SQ. FT.Third Floor(With Roof Deck)917 SQ. FT.Fourth Floor94 SQ. FT.21'-4"43'-2"21'-4"45'-2"21'-4"44'-2"21'-4"45'-2"21'-2"45'-2"Unit Live / Work / Shop3 Bed / 2 Bath 2 Powder2248 SQ. FT. Gross2342 SQ. FT. Gross(With Fourth Floor)98 SQ. FT. Private Open SpaceGreat Room20'-5"x16'-2"KitchenRoof Deck20'-5"x12'-0"244 SQ. FT.CoatBath 2M. Bedroom11'-0"x16'-0"CoatM. BathBedroom 210'-0"x13'-7"W.I.C.Stor.PowderRoofLau.Garage20'-5"x20'-0"Balcony11'-1"x10'-1"98 SQ. FT.WHFoyerWork Space16'-6"x14'-8"PowderBedroom 310'-2"x13'-7"W.I.C.Bedroom 210'-0"x11'-7"Bedroom 310'-2"x11'-7"Lau.Bath 2W.I.C.W.I.C.M. Bedroom11'-0"x14'-9"M. BathLin.Pan.2'-8"6'-0"3'-3"6'-0"3'-5"2'-10"6'-0"3'-3"6'-0"3'-3"3'-2"6'-0"5'-9"3'-0"3'-5"2'-8"16'-0"2'-8"2'-0 1/2"6'-8"2'-0"4'-7 1/2"6'-0"21'-4"1'-10 1/2"6'-0"6'-8"2'-0"4'-9 1/2"21'-4"5 1/2"6'-2"2'-0"4'-7 1/2"8'-1"21'-4"8'-4"2'-7"6"3'-0"1'-7 1/2"3'-0"21'-4"2'-3 1/2"21'-4"Pan.Storage125 SF Min.20'-5"20'-0"0 2 48Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-40UNIT PLANSLIVE WORK SHOPScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"464464 +30"+30"+30"+30"+30"+30"+30"+30"+34"+34"+18"+34"22+30"22OPEN TO ABOVE75" MEDIA+34"+34"+14"+30"+30"+34"22+30"2255555" MEDIA55" MEDIA+30"MICROREF+30"+36"+30"+30"+30"+34"+34"+30"+30"+30"TSHRECUBEV/KEGT.LVT.T. C.T.C.T.C.T.C.LVT. T.T.T.T.T.LVT.T.LVT.LVT.LVT.LVT.70" MEDIALVT.TURF. LVT.TURF. LVT.TURF.UBEV/COFFEECOPIERSHREDDERMOBILE DRYCLEANING RACKSAFEKEYBOXHANDYTRACKKEYBOXKEYBOXHANDYTRACK+30"T.C.+34"+30"+30"C.T.C.T.T.TURF.T.T.T.T. C.+42"IC. 10'-0" x 16'-0"T.T.TSHRECUBEV/WINEC.T.REFUBEV/WINEIC. 12'-0" x 12'-0"+34"+34"+34"+34"First FloorGross Floor Area: 11549 SQ. FT.Leasing49'-1"x45'-1"2213 SQ. FT.149'-0" 25'-5"78'-11 1/2"24'-6"229'-6"Fitness30'-1"x78'-1"2348 SQ. FT.Men8'-10"x18'-8"165 SQ. FT.Women9'-2"x18'-8"172 SQ. FT.UpUpInfoDeskLounge59'-3"x42'-1"1811 SQ. FT.ElevatorElevatorRoomKitchen11'-4"x11'-1"126 SQ. FT.LifestyleDirector10'-7"x18'-7"196 SQ. FT.MPOE6'-6"x11'-1"72 SQ. FT.Storage11'-4"x7'-0"79 SQ. FT.Multi Purpose25'-0"x43'-1"1026 SQ. FT.Patio25'-11"x26'-0"585 SQ. FT.JanitorStor.Fitness Class30'-1"x24'-1"723 SQ. FT.RestRoom8'-1"x8'-7"69 SQ. FT.Coffee/WineBarRestRoom8'-0"x8'-7"69 SQ. FT.Packaging/Parcel/Work Space30'-1"x44'-1"1213 SQ. FT.Maintenance15'-6"x22'-1"342 SQ. FT.Community Admin.20'-1"x21'-7"432 SQ. FT.IT6'-6"x7'-0"45 SQ. FT.Up56'-2"25'-0 1/2"26'-9 1/2"20'-6"50'-0"51'-0"20'-1 1/2"0 4 816Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-43BUILDING PLANSCLUBHOUSE & LEASING CENTERScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"465465 75" MEDIA75" MEDIA 75" MEDIAOPEN TO BELOWREF+34"T.T.T.T.T.T.+14"+14"T.T.75" MEDIAFRZ+30"+42"PRINTERC.70" TVREF+34"+42"+34"+30"+30"75" MEDIA Second FloorGross Floor Area: 6050 SQ. FT.Men8'-10"x19'-10"175 SQ. FT.Women9'-2"x19'-10"182 SQ. FT.Recreation59'-3"x27'-3"1182 SQ. FT.Open To Below20'-6"x15'-8"322 SQ. FT.ElevatorDn.Co-Working49'-1"x26'-1"1280 SQ. FT.Deck19'-3"x6'-1"117 SQ. FT.Deck 146'-11"x28'-8"1274 SQ. FT.Club Room42'-6"x25'-0"933 SQ. FT.Conference13'-9"x13'-2"181 SQ. FT.I.T.8'-6"x8'-7"73 SQ. FT.Dn.Roof BelowRoof Below57'-0"185'-6"PrepKitchen11'-11"x17'-7"209 SQ. FT.Deck 220'-6"x16'-3"333 SQ. FT.9'-6"50'-0"20'-6"81'-8"Conference29'-4"x17'-7"515 SQ. FT.Dn.0 4 816Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786A-44BUILDING PLANSCLUBHOUSE & LEASING CENTERScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"466466 Exhibit E 467 467 468468 469469 470470 471 471 472 472 473473 474474 MADOLE&ASSOCIATES, INC.DRC PACKAGENOVEMBER 19, 2019LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDINGCOMPANY, LLC.TCA #2017-2015-079DRAWING NO.OF DRAWINGSS T . ETIWANDA AVENUEONTARIOINTERNATIONALAIRPORT4TH STREET6TH STARROW ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDINLAND EMPIREBLVDHAVEN AVENUE ARCHIBALD AVENUE HERMOSA AVENUE MILLIKEN AVENUE SANBERNARDINOAVENUEROCHESTER AVENUEMETROLINK15 10PROJECTCONCOURSVICINITY MAPNTS5TENTATIVE TRACT MAP20118OWNER/DEVELOPERLCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVEUPLAND, CA. 91786CONTACT: BRIAN JACOBSON(909)579-1214 OFFICEEmail: Brian.Jacobson@lewismc.comCIVIL ENGINEERMADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730CONTACT: MARK BERTONE(909) 481-6322 ext. 120Email: mbertone@madoleinc.comARCHITECTKTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200IRVINE, CA. 92614LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSITESCAPES, INC.3190 B-2 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVECOSTA MESA, CA. 92626CONTACT: RICK POLHAMUS(949) 644-9370Email: rpolhamus@sitescapes.netNOTES:1.PRESENT ZONING: EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN2.LAND USE PROPOSED - MIXED USE3.THIS SITE CONTAINS 40.73 GROSS ACRES.4.THIS SITE CONTAINS 40.73 NET ACRES.5.THIS SITE CONSISTS OF (8) NUMBERED LOTS6.THIS SITE CONTAINS 0 LETTERED LOTS7.SEWAGE DISPOSAL CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT.8.EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.0 ACRES.9.PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 26.9 ACRES.UTILITY COMPANIESWATER/SEWER:CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT10440 ASHFORD STREETP.O. BOX 638 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91729PHONE: (909) 987-2591ELECTRIC:RCMU10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVERANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730PHONE: (909) 919-2612EMAIL: rcmu.customer@cityforc.usTELEPHONE:FRONTIER1400 E. PHILLIPS BLVD. POMONA, CA 91766ATTN: JERRY PAUBELPHONE: (909) 469-6354GAS:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.13525 12th STREET CHINO, CA 91719PHONE: (909) 613-1531UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT811NOTE TABLELTR.DESCRIPTIONAN EASEMENT RESERVE HEREON FOR INGRESS/EGRESSPURPOSESADDITIONAL DEDICATION TO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAVACATE FROM THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGATTM-01SHEET INDEXSHEET 1 TITLE SHEETSGHEET 2-5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SHEETSAPN: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, 0210-102-10THE BEARING OF N89°22'39"W FOR THE CENTERLINE OFFOURTH STREET AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP No. 20073,T.M. 349/52-58, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGSFOR THIS MAP.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK NO. 10012CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 1" ROUND HEAD BOLT INCONCRETE STAMPED "S.B. Co. BM 01670" AT NORTHEASTCORNER OF 6TH STREET AND HELLMAN AVE., 1 FT. EAST OFBEGINNING OF CURB RETURN.ELEVATION: 1551.107'BENCHMARK:IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINOSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAPN: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, 0210-102-10NOVEMBER 201940.73 AC. GROSS 40.73 AC. NET8 NUMBERED LOTSBEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 8, 9, & 10, AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP NO. 20073 OF T.M. 349, PAGES 52-58.(867 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES)FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSESTENTATIVE TRACT NO. 20118S H T . 2 S H T . 3 S H T . 4 S H T . 5FOURTH STREETCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGACITY OF ONTARIOSIXTH STREETTHE CLEVELAND AVENUE (PRIVATE)RESORTPARKWAY2 7 ' 27'27'39'27'27'25'27'27'39' 2 5 '27'3 9 ' 3 9 '27'2 7 '25'39' 39' 39'39'39'N00°06'51.73"W 2153.02N00°28'12.00"E 673.01N89°30'56.76"W 1074.20 82 '41' 41'N.A.P.N89°53'29.32"E 331.21 N00°37'21.03"E 138.751.12 AC.N40°33'24.21"E 433.6027'27'27'27'25'27'27'25'25' 25'25'25' 27' 25'25'27'25'27'25'39'39'39'27'25' 25'25'27'27'27'25'25' 25' 25'25'27' 27'39'39' 27' 3 9 '25'27'27'25'39'25'25'39' 27'25'37'27 ' 31' 31' 31' 39'Δ=40°11'55"R=641.00'L=449.72'T=234.56'Δ=90°34'53"R=24.00'L=37.94'T=24.24'0.98 AC.2.42 AC.10.02 AC.9.32 AC.9.33 AC.0.18 AC.8.31 AC.N.A.P.T.M. NO. 20073P.M.B. 349/53-58LOT 6N.A.P.T.M. NO. 20073P.M.B. 349/53-58LOT 5N.A.P.T.M. NO. 20073P.M.B. 349/53-58LOT4LOT2LOT1LOT3N.A.P.T.M. NO. 20073P.M.B. 349/53-5825'25' 2 7 ' 25'25'9.32 AC.0.17 AC.LOT 6LOT 5LOT 3LOT 4LOT 3LOT 2LOT 1LOT 7LOT 8UPON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING AREA S-19 TO THE SOUTH,IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS AREA OF THE SITE PLAN WILL BE MODIFIED TOPROVIDE DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM THE APARTMENT SITE TO PLANNING AREA S-19.Exhibit F475475 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vincent Acuna December 3, 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC - A request to subdivide a vacant 39.68-acre site into 8 numbered lots for condominium purposes, for the development of 867 for-rent apartments within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Cleveland Avenue. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway; APNs: 0210- 102-08, 0210-102-09, and 0210-102-10. Related Files: Design Review DRC2019-00674 and Pre- Application DRC2019-00127. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC - A request to develop 867 for-rent apartments on a 39.68- acre site within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Cleveland Avenue. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway; APNs: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, and 0210-102-10. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Pre-Application DRC2019-00127. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015- 00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Review Background: The Planning Commission reviewed this project at a Pre-Application Review workshop on August 14, 2019 (Related file: Pre-Application Review DRC2019-00127). The Planning Commission praised the project for its urban character, gridded street network that encourages walkability, and the diversity of proposed architectural styles. The Planning Commission found that the project was consistent with the intent and vision of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. However, the Commission also recommended that the applicant work with staff to refine the building plotting, pedestrian connections, parking, and the architectural styles of some buildings in the project. Site Characteristics and Background: The project site is part of a 160-acre property that was formerly developed with the privately owned and operated Empire Lakes Golf Course. The project site is generally located in the center of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan (the “Specific Plan”), which has an overall area of 347 acres and is generally bound by 4th Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to the west, and 8th Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line to the north. The golf course was closed in mid-2016 following the City Council approved amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code (related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115). These amendments were for the purpose of enabling a new mixed-use and transit-oriented project ("Empire Lakes/The Resort") by the master developer, Lewis Management Corp. Exhibit G 476 476 DRC COMMENTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC December 3, 2019 Page 2 The Empire Lakes Specific Plan is envisioned as a walkable mixed-use community in proximity to the Metrolink Rancho Cucamonga Station. The plan provides daily lifestyle elements in a setting where the spaces for living and playing are intimate, personal, and connected. High- density homes will be within walking or biking distance to transit, existing local job centers, mixed use areas, commercial services, and recreation amenities. The Specific Plan area is bisected into south and north halves by 6th Street. The overall project is intended to be developed in phases by various developers. The first phase will include all of the southern half and a small portion of the northern half. The southern half currently consists of 10 parcels as part of Tract Map 20073, recorded on March 18, 2018. The project site is comprised of Parcels #8 through #10 of this subdivision. The site will have an area of approximately 39.68 acres with a street frontage of about 2,300 feet along the overall project’s north-south primary street ("The Resort Parkway"). Three developments have been approved east of the project site, across The Resort Parkway: • On Parcel #4, a 296-unit for-sale condominium development by Van Daele Homes (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT200147 and Design Review DRC2017-00925) was approved by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2018. • On Parcel #5, an 80-unit for-sale detached condominium development by Tri-Pointe Homes (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20240 and Design Review DRC2018-00851) was approved by the Planning Commission on April 10, 2019. • On Parcel #6, a 135-unit for-sale condominium development by The New Home Company (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20241 and Design Review DRC2018-00784) was approved by the Planning Commission on March 13, 2019. Land Uses: The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant1 Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1) 2 North Vacant Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1 and 11) 2 South Vacant1 Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1) 2 East Multi-Family Residential (Under Construction)1 Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1) 2 West Office Complex Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 2-5) 2 1 - Part of the south half of former private golf course; 2 - Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project Overview: The Specific Plan is divided into 24 “Placetypes,” 11 of which are located south of 6th Street. The land use characteristics and density of each Placetype are defined by 6 different designations. The location of the project site is within areas S-14 through S-18 and in S-24, which are comprised of Village Neighborhood (VN), Core Living (CL), and Recreation (REC) Placetypes. The project is also partially within the Mixed-Use Overlay along The Resort Parkway. 477 477 DRC COMMENTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC December 3, 2019 Page 3 The applicant (LCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC) proposes the development of 867 for- rent apartments ranging from one to three-bedroom units. The project proposes 6 residential building types, ranging from two-story paired homes to three-story 21-plex buildings. A total of 5,000 square-feet of commercial space is proposed and incorporated as part of the live-work buildings. Architecture, Building Plotting, and Site Layout: The 6 residential building types with various architectural themes are outlined in the table below. Building Type Units in each Building Stories Architectural Themes Paired Homes 2 2 Contemporary, Spanish Linear Townhomes 7 3 Contemporary, Main Street 6-Plex Stacked Flats 6 2 Spanish, European Heritage 10-Plex Stacked Flats 10 3 Contemporary, Spanish 21-Plex Stacked Flats 21 3 Contemporary, Industrial Live/Work Buildings 4 Live/Work, 1 Commercial 3 Contemporary Linear townhomes are generally plotted along the project’s frontage along The Resort Parkway, while Live/Work buildings flank the project’s entry driveway from a roundabout on The Resort Parkway. The remaining building types are plotted in a grid-pattern facing interior streets throughout the remainder of the site. Stand-alone garage buildings are proposed within the interior of the blocks. A recreation building with the leasing office and an amenity area is proposed at the project’s northwesterly corner. Parking and Circulation: Table 7.6 (Parking Standards) of the Specific Plan states that residential development with a density of 30 units/acre or less shall provide parking consistent with the requirements described in Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code. The project has a proposed density of 22 dwelling units per acre and is made up of 867 for-rent apartment units. Parking is provided in three forms: a) covered garage spaces; b) street parking along The Resort Parkway and along interior streets within the project; and c) tandem, uncovered spaces on driveways leading up to covered garages. As the following parking summary table demonstrates, the project meets all covered and uncovered parking requirements. Unit Type Number of Units or Square Footage Parking Requirement Parking Spaces Required 1 Bedroom 438 units 1.5 spaces/unit* 657 (329 covered) 2 Bedroom 374 units 2 spaces/unit* 748 (374 covered) 3 Bedroom 55 units 2 spaces/unit** 110 (110 covered) Guest N/A 1 per 3 units 289 Commercial 5,000 sq. ft. 4 per 1000 sq. ft. 20 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 1824 (813 covered) TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 1824 (1056 covered) * With 1 in garage or carport **With 2 in garage or carport Vehicle access occurs via four driveways, two from The Resort Parkway and two from 6th Street. 478 478 DRC COMMENTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC December 3, 2019 Page 4 There are also numerous paseos that run through the project, providing pedestrian access from The Resort Parkway to the east and from the Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) offices to the west. Consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan, the project will be an “open community.” All streets within the interior of the project will be private (maintained by a homeowner’s association). These streets, however, will be open to the public (non-residents of the project). Open Space and Recreational Amenities: Individual projects within the Specific Plan area are required to provide 150 square feet of a combination of private and common open space per dwelling unit. The project provides 77,381 square feet of private open space and 309,000 square- feet of common open space for a total of 386,381 square feet. This breaks down to 446 square- feet per unit, far exceeding the requirements of the Specific Plan. Proposed amenities include a two-story, 17,600 square-foot clubhouse, basketball and tennis courts, a dog park, a pool, and various paseos/green areas. Apart from project-specific open space amenities, the overall Specific Plan area will include common recreation facilities such as pools/spas, fitness centers, parks, walking paths, common gathering areas, among others. These common areas are designed to meet the recreational amenity requirements generally required of multi-family projects within the City. These common recreational areas are also generally designed to be within proximity to each of the residential developments throughout the larger project site. Walls/Fences: A 6-foot high tubular steel fence with block pilasters is proposed along the western property line, separating the project site and the IEHP offices. Three ungated pedestrian access points are proposed along this area, allowing free and open access through the site for both IEHP employees and residents of The Resort. Additionally, a combination of a 6-foot high block wall and a 6-foot high tubular steel fence is proposed along the south property line, separating the project site and the vacant property to the south. The pilasters supporting the tubular steel fence are spaced in a way that a portion of the fence may be removed to accommodate a future driveway connection south of the project site. The project’s pool area will be enclosed with a 5- foot high tubular steel fence, while the dog park will be enclosed with a 4-foot high powder-coated chain link fence. Density: The overall density of the proposed project is 22 dwelling units/acre which meets the required density range of 16-28 du/acre for the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype, and 18-35 du/acre for the Core Living (CL) Placetype. Land Use Mix (Residential): Table 7.1 (Development Program) of the Specific Plan allows for a maximum of 3,450 units to be constructed within the overall Master Plan area. Of this amount, 1,450 units are permitted south of 6th Street. The current proposal is for the construction of 867 residential units. In addition to the other three developments approved on the south side of 6th Street (511 residential units), the total number of units approved will be 1,378. This leaves a remainder of 72 residential units that may be constructed south of 6th Street. Land Use Mix (Non-Residential): Table 7.1 (Development Program) of the Specific Plan requires that a minimum 50,000 square feet of non-residential uses be provided within the Mixed-Use Overlay, with a minimum of 20,000 square feet provided south of 6th Street. The project proposes 5,000 square feet of commercial space, resulting in a minimum 15,000 square feet of non- residential uses still required to be constructed south of 6th Street. Staff Comments: 479 479 DRC COMMENTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC December 3, 2019 Page 5 The applicant has worked diligently with staff to revise and clarify the issues raised during the Planning Commission workshop, including identifying and strengthening pedestrian connections, revising building plotting to comply with setbacks, and improving the architecture on several buildings. Therefore, staff has no major or secondary issues with the project as proposed. Major Issues: None Secondary Issues: None Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on- site to match the nearby buildings. 2. All ground-mounted equipment proposed, including utility boxes, transformers, and back-flow devices, shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on-center. All ground-mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed otherwise by the Fire Department. 3. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted HVAC equipment shall be screened from public view either through landscape screening, or the installation of rooftop units below the roof parapet height. Staff Recommendation: Staff is in support of the proposed Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Design Review DRC2019-00674. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and vision of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan as an urban, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood within walking distance of the Metrolink station. Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for review and action. Staff Planner: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner Staff Coordinator: Mike Smith, Principal Planner 480 480 DECEMBER 3, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 1 of 3 A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00pm Roll Call: Diane Williams x Tony M. Guglielmo x Mike Smith x Alternates: Bryan Dopp Francisco Oaxaca Additional Staff Present: David Eoff, Sr. Planner; Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individuals members of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 481 481 DECEMBER 3, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 2 of 3 C1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC - A request to subdivide a vacant 39.68-acre site into 8 numbered lots for condominium purposes, for the development of 867 for-rent apartments within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Cleveland Avenue. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway; APNs: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, and 0210-102-10. Related Files: Design Review DRC2019-00674 and Pre-Application DRC2019-00127. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – LCD EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC - A request to develop 867 for-rent apartments on a 39.68-acre site within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Cleveland Avenue. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway; APNs: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, and 0210-102-10. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Pre-Application DRC2019-00127. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project Homecoming at the Resort (1A). DRC recommended the project move forward to PC for review and approval. Overall the DRC was very pleased with the project and the effort that went in to getting it to this point. The project is tentatively scheduled for a PC hearing in January. 482 482 DECEMBER 3, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 3 of 3 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. D. ADJOURNMENT 7:45pm The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at least seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 483 483 JN 1076-002 MEMORANDUM To: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department From: Tina Andersen Re: HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT (DRC 2019-00674) Date: October 14, 2019 1.0 Introduction and Background Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC is requesting design review approval (DRC 2019-00674), and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 20118 (SUBTT 00009) for the proposed Homecoming at The Resort Project (proposed Project), which will implement a portion of the approved Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) (also referred to as Empire Lakes) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Approved Project). The proposed Project is comprised of Parcels 8 through 10 of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073. The City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the Empire Lakes/IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project and certified the associated Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in May 2016 (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR or Final EIR), State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083). The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.). The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all entitlements associated with implementation of Planning Area I (PAI) of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the Specific Plan. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR may be required for a project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met: A.When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (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 certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: Exhibit H 484 484 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT (DRC 2019-00674) October 14, 2019 Page 2 of 3 (a) The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined would 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. Consistent with this requirement, individual projects implementing the Specific Plan, including the proposed Project (Homecoming at The Resort), will be reviewed to determine if they are within the scope of the development anticipated and evaluated in the Final EIR. If the implementing project is within the scope of the Approved Project and analysis included in the Final EIR, no additional environmental review is required. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the analysis presented in Attachment A to this document evaluates the proposed Project in comparison to the Approved Project and the analysis in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR for each impact category to determine if the previous analysis adequately addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Project. 2.0 Project Description The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR addressed the construction-related and operational environmental impacts that would result from redevelopment of the 160-acre Empire Lakes Golf Course with a proposed mixed-use, high-density residential/commercial development. A maximum of 3,450 residential units and 220,000 square feet (sf) of non-residential uses is allowed by the Approved Project in PAI. Recreation/open space areas and infrastructure to serve the approved uses are also included. As further described below, the currently proposed Project involves construction and operation of 867 for rent apartment homes; and approximately 16,000 square foot (sf) clubhouse/leasing center; and approximately 21,700 sf of commercial space within the Project site. The Project site encompasses 39.68 gross acres and is bound by 6th Street to the north, Empire Lakes Specific Plan Parcel S-19 to the south, The Resort Parkway to the east, and Cleveland Avenue (a private drive aisle) to the west. The Project site includes all of Parcels S-14 through S-18, and S-24 within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, which include Village Neighborhood (VN), Core Living (CL), and Recreation (REC) Placetypes (refer to the attached Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype). The northern and eastern portions of the Project site are within the Mixed Use Overlay 1 along 6th Street and The Resort Parkway, respectively. 1 As defined in Section 7.3.2.G of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, the Mixed Use Overlay may be applied voluntarily to a parcel, or portion of a parcel. The Mixed Use Overlay provides market flexibility and added placemaking opportunities…Development occurring under the Mixed Use Overlay is subject to the standards and guidelines of the MU Placetype; all non-residential square footage would count toward the total gross square footage allowed in Table 7.1: PAI Development Program, of the Specific Plan. 485 485 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT (DRC 2019-00674) October 14, 2019 Page 3 of 4 The Project site has been disturbed from previously completed mass grading operations. Approved clubhouse and residential uses within the Specific Plan area are located to the east of the Project site, across The Resort Parkway, and are currently under construction, and 2- and 3-story office buildings are located to the west, west of Cleveland Avenue. There is undeveloped land in the Specific Plan area to the south, and 6th Street and undeveloped land in the Specific Plan area to the north. The undeveloped Specific Plan areas to the north and south have also been mass graded for future development in The Resort. The proposed conceptual site plan and representative building elevations for the proposed Project are attached. The proposed Project involves the construction of 867 apartment homes incorporated in a number of distinct building types. As identified in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, the allowable density range for development within Parcel S-14 was assumed at 18-35 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and the density within Parcels S-15 through S- 18 was assumed to be 16-28 du/ac. Based on the proposed site plan, the density of Project is estimated to be 22 du/acre (867 units/39.68 acres), which meets the required density range. Proposed residential buildings include paired homes, linear townhomes, 21-plex stacked flats, 10-plex stacked flats, and 6-plex stacked flats. Linear townhomes are located along the Project’s frontage along The Resort Parkway, and live/work buildings are located at the Project’s entry driveway from a roundabout on The Resort Parkway. There are three 21-plex stacked flat buildings and one 10-plex stacked flat building that front 6th Street. The remaining buildings are plotted in a grid-pattern, facing interior streets. The floor plans for the residential units range in size from approximately 764 sf to 2,122 sf and include one-, two- and three-bedroom units. In addition to the residential buildings, there will be a 10,000 square-foot, 2-story commercial building at the southwest corner of 6th Street and The Resort Parkway, and approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial/retail space attached to the four live/work townhome buildings on the west side of the roundabout on The Resort Parkway. The 16 live/work townhome units provide for a total of approximately 6,700 square feet of commercial space within the work areas. The two-story clubhouse/leasing center (approximately 16,000 sf) is located south of and adjacent to the commercial building and west of The Resort Parkway. The proposed structures will be two- and three levels featuring various architectural styles as summarized in Table 1 below. The buildings will also have various complementary color schemes. Other structures will include one- story covered garage buildings and a maintenance building, which will have a Contemporary architectural theme. To provide a consistent visual character relative to building height, the Specific Plan sets the maximum allowed height of buildings not adjacent to existing residences east of the Specific Plan area to a maximum height of 60 feet south of 6th Street. The proposed residential buildings will be up to 3-stories, with building heights ranging between approximately 27-feet to 39-feet for all but the four live/work townhome buildings, which are approximately 46-feet at their highest point, and thus, will not exceed the established height restrictions (refer to the attached representative building elevations). Further, the proposed development will comply with the setbacks, landscape design, and other development standards established in the Specific Plan to ensure there is a sufficient buffer between existing and proposed uses. Approximately 8.9 acres of open space will be provided, including approximately 7.1 acres of common open space (clubhouse area, amenities, park spaces, paseos, bbq areas, and a dog park) and 1.8 acres of private open space (approximately 88 sf per unit consisting of balconies, patios, porches and roof decks). The conceptual landscape plan, which shows the ground level open space areas, is attached. 486 486 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT (DRC 2019-00674) October 14, 2019 Page 4 of 5 TABLE 1 BUILDING TYPES AND ARCHITECTURE Building Type Number of Buildings Units in Each Building Stories Architectural Theme Paired Homes 45 2 2 Contemporary and Spanish Linear Townhomes 11 7 3 Contemporary and Main Street 6-Plex Stacked Flats 17 6 2 Spanish and European Heritage 10-Plex Stacked Flats 12 10 3 Contemporary and Spanish 21-Plex Stacked Flats 22 21 3 Contemporary and Industrial Live/Work Buildings 4 4 Live/Work 1 Commercial 3 Contemporary Clubhouse/Leasing 1 NA 2 Contemporary Vehicular access to the proposed development will be provided from two access points on 6th Street, and three access points along The Resort Parkway including the roundabout. The proposed Project includes 1,824 parking spaces, in compliance with the Specific Plan requirements (refer to the Parking Assessment provided in Attachment C of this document). Parking will consist of 1,056 garage spaces, 149 driveway spaces, 538 on-site spaces, 47 on-street parking spaces, and 34 spaces in the adjacent shared parking lot. Walking paths and sidewalks will connect to internal areas with external pedestrian connections to The Resort community as a whole and to the existing office park to the west. Pedestrian facilities are shown in the attached conceptual landscape plan. Construction of the proposed Project is expected to start in April 2020 and be complete by December 2023. Finish grading will occur between April and June 2020 and building construction will start in August 2020. This is within the construction timeframe assumed in the Final EIR for construction in PAI of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan (through spring 2024). The construction-related analysis presented in the Final EIR assumed that there will be approximately 100 truck trips (50 heavy truck trips) per day during the period of time when building, utility and pavement construction activities for Phase 1 overlap. The finish grading required for the proposed Project will occur over a limited period of time (approximately 3 months) and will not require import or export of soils outside of PAI. Some soil (approximately 25,000 cubic yards) is expected to be exported to other areas internal to the PAI and it is estimated there will be 10-12 short, internal heavy trips per day related to the finish grading efforts. Other construction activities would also generate truck trips, as anticipated in the Final EIR. With respect to construction equipment, the construction-related analysis presented in the Final EIR assumed concurrent activities at various locations within PAI (e.g., mass grading and finish grading; and post-grading building construction, installation of utility infrastructure, paving and architectural coatings). Consistent with the 487 487 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT (DRC 2019-00674) October 14, 2019 Page 5 of 6 construction activities evaluated in the Final EIR, construction of the proposed residential units will involve finish grading, building construction, utility installation, paving and architectural coatings. There are currently no occupied dwelling units within PAI; however, the City has approved development of 511 units (215 units in Parcel S-20, 296 units in Parcels S-21 and S-22), and the Club on 6th Street in Parcel S-23. These approved development projects are currently under construction and the first residential models will open between September 2019 and January 2020, with buildout expected over approximately 3 years. Construction of the Club on 6th Street is complete and this facility is planned to open in October 2019. Thus, there will be overlapping construction activities occurring within PAI. The mass grading activities, which use larger equipment (and generate higher air quality emissions and noise) have been completed. The number and type of construction equipment to be used for construction activities at each project site will vary on a daily basis. However, with the completion of mass grading activities and associated extensive use of larger equipment at the Project site, the average operation of construction equipment to be used on a daily basis for remaining concurrent construction activities at all sites will not exceed that assumed in the Final EIR analysis for estimating maximum emissions, as further discussed in the Air Quality discussion in Attachment A. The maximum number of units allowed by the Specific Plan south of 6th Street is up to 1,450 units. The currently proposed 867-unit Project, together with the 511 approved units (total of 1,378 units), is within the allowed number of units. Based on the population generation factor used in the Final EIR (3.04 residents per unit), the proposed Project is anticipated to be occupied by approximately 2,636 residents, which is within the estimated population growth anticipated in PAI (up to 10,488 residents). Based on employment generation assumptions presented in the Final EIR, up to 37 new jobs may be generated by the commercial/retail uses. This is within the estimated number of jobs anticipated in the Final EIR (341 jobs). 3.0 Environmental Review Conclusion Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, “If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” With regard to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines: 1. The proposed Project does not propose substantial changes which will require major revisions to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed Project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 3. No new information of substantial importance was found that would: (a) create new significant effects; (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects; (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible; or (d) introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR that would reduce significant impacts. 488 488 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT (DRC 2019-00674) October 14, 2019 Page 6 of 7 In accordance with Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based on the analysis presented in Attachment A of this document, it is concluded that construction and operation of the proposed Project (Homecoming at The Resort), which implements the previously approved Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment, will not result in environmental effects that were not examined in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final Program EIR. The proposed Project was adequately covered by the evaluation and mitigation measures in the Final EIR. As demonstrated through the analysis presented in Attachment A, there have been no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed Project will be undertaken that will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Further, no new information of substantial importance shows that the proposed Project will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; that mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible will now be feasible; or that there are mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR that will reduce significant impacts. No additional CEQA documentation is required. 489 489 E mpire L akes7-16 Figure 7.6: Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype E L MetrolinkRancho CucamongaStation 6th Street 7th Street 7th Street South North 4th Street Pocket Park Metrolink San Bernardino Line Pocket Park Urban Plaza The Vine The VineMilliken AveS ECONDARY E NTRY S ECONDARY E NTRY S ECONDARY E NTRY Placetype L egend Village Neighborhood (VN) Recreation (REC) MU Overlay Core Living (CL) Urban Neighborhood (UN) Mixed Use (MU) Transit (T) Not e: Fi gur e not t o s cale. Homecoming at the Resort 490 490 UP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 44 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 44 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 44 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 44 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 44 44 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 44 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 FX2640TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT 2'-6"FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT UP FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPE WIDTH HEIGHTFX 3040TYPE WIDTH HEIGHTFX4040TYPEWIDTH HEIGHT FX4040TYPE WIDTHHEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 07A FX2040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 2'-6" FX 4040 TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT FX4040TYPE WIDTHHEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPE WID T HHEIGHTFX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTH HEIGHT FX3040TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTH HEIGHT FX 4040 TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT FX 4040 TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT FX 4040 TYPE WIDTH HEIGHT MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOOR TEXTFLIP MTL. REVERSE TEXT HEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOORTEXTFLIP MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOOR TEXTFLIPTYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 3070 3070 30 70 30703070 30703070HEATERSPA337K BTUHEATERWADER337K BTUPANELCLEARANCEELECTRICALPOOLH O2POOL & SALT GENERATORCLEARANCESAND TR-14 0 C FILTE RSPA SANDTR-140 CFILTERPOOL SAND TR-140 C FILTE RPOOL SANDTR-14 0 C FILTE R WADER SANDTR-14 0 C FILTE R WETPL A Y SANDTR-140 C FILTE R WETP L A Y SAND TR-1 4 0 C FILTE RPOOL HEATERPOOL407K BTUHEATERPOOL407K BTUHEATERPOOL407K BTUP A R K W A YT H E R E S O R T THE RESORT PARKWAYCLEVELAND AVENUEFUTURE COMMERCIAL 10,000 SF LEASING AMENITY AREA 80 Spaces Total (34 spaces dedicated to Residential) UP UP UPUP UPUPUPUPUP UPUP UP UP UP 414 4 4 4 1 44 44 1 4 4 4 4 41 44 44 14 4 4 4 1 4 41 4 4 4 4 1 44 44 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 44 44 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 41 4 4 4 41 44 44 1 4 4 44 41 44 44 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 FX2640TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 2'-6"FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT UP FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040 TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 07A FX2040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 2'-6"FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWI D T H HE I G H TFX4040TY P E WI D T H HE I G H TFX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTFX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX3040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT FX4040TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOORTEXTFLIP MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOORTEXTFLIP MTL.REVERSE TEXTHEIGHTWIDTHTYPEDOOR TEXTFLIP TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHTTYPEWIDTHHEIGHT TYPEWIDTHHEIGHT 3070 3070 3070 3070 3070 3070 3070HEATERSPA337K BTUHEATERWADER337K BTU PANELCLEARANCE ELECTRICALPOOL H O2 POOL & SALT GEN E R A TOR CLEARANCE SANDTR-140CFILTERSPA SANDTR-140CFILTERPOOL SANDTR-140CFILTERPOOL SANDTR-140C FILTERWADER SANDTR-140CFILTERWETPLAY SANDTR-140C FILTERWETPLAY SANDTR-140CFILTERPOOL HEATERPOOL407K BTU HEATERPOOL407K BTU HEATERPOOL407K BTU P A R K W A YT H E R E S O R T 0 60 12030 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 DRC SUBMITTAL SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 LCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 21 Plex Stacked Flats Garage Buildings Paired Homes Linear Townhomes 6 Plex Stacked Flats Live-Work-Shop Recreation-Leasing 10 Plex Stacked Flats Product Color Legend 0 300 600150 Key Map / Sheet Legend S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE S-2SITE PLAN SITE PLAN OVERALL Adjusted to 24' Parallel Stalls Scale: 1" = 60'-0" 491 491 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-1PERSPECTIVES21 PLEX STACKED FLATSCONTEMPORARYINDUSTRIALMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Metal Railing5. Masonry Veneer6. Decorative AwningContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional or contemporaryaccent colors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material defining colors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrasting traditional orcontemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalanced windowplacement.163542Material Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Metal Siding4. Metal Railing5. Masonry Veneer6. Metal AwningIndustrial Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned or detailed parapet walls.B. Projections or wall planes articulate facade with simple,unadorned forms.C. Contrasting form and / or material defining colors consisting ofstucco, metal, or fiber cement siding.D. Minimal window trims with contrasting neutral tones.E. Bold, contemporary accent colors.F. Enhanced brick wall veneer.G. Cantilevered deck projections.H. Enhanced horizontal banding between floors.I. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.J. Enhanced metal balcony railings.ABHIJGFDEC123541BDEFAC66A492492 Front ElevationINDUSTRIAL163542Material Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Metal Siding4. Metal Railing5. Masonry Veneer6. Metal AwningIndustrial Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned ordetailed parapet walls.B. Projections or wall planes articulatefacade with simple, unadorned forms.C. Contrasting form and / or materialdefining colors consisting of stucco,metal, or fiber cement siding.D. Minimal window trims with contrastingneutral tones.E. Bold, contemporary accent colors.F. Enhanced brick wall veneer.G. Cantilevered deck projections.H. Enhanced horizontal banding betweenfloors.I. Enhanced metal awnings oroverhangs.J. Enhanced metal balcony railings.AABHIJGFDEC9'-1"9'-1" ±38'-1" 9'-1"Level 1Level 2Level 3P2P4P4P2Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 917860248A-5ELEVATIONS21 PLEX STACKED FLATSScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"493493 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-9PERSPECTIVES10 PLEX STACKED FLATSSPANISHCONTEMPORARY133415Material Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof Tile6. Decorative Tile7. Decorative Shutter8. Decorative Metal Awning9. Decorative Stucco Detail10.Precast Concrete Trim214Spanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Tight rake, where used.C. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.D. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.E. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.F. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.G. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.H. Vertically proportioned windows.ABCDEFGHContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material definingcolors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrastingtraditional or contemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalancedwindow placement.ABCDF25Material Legend1. Stucco2. Metal Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Masonry Veneer5. Metal RailingE671089494494 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-15PERSPECTIVESLINEAR TOWNHOMESMAIN STREETCONTEMPORARYMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Brick Veneer4. Metal Awning5. Metal Railing6. Fiber Cement Siding1315211361AABHIGFDECContemporary Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned or detailed parapet walls.B. Projections or wall planes articulate facade with simple,unadorned forms.C. Contrasting form and / or material defining colors consistingof stucco, metal, or fiber cement siding.D. Minimal window trims with contrasting neutral tones.E. Bold, contemporary accent colors.F. Enhanced wood wall veneer.G. Cantilevered deck projections.H. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.I. Enhanced metal balcony railings.Main Street Style ElementsA. Flat roof with cornice to unify facade.B. Stucco with accent materials (brick vaneer, metal).C. Window Awnings with contrasting neutral tones.D. Enhanced brick wall veneer.E. Balconies.F. 'Storefront' form entriesG. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.H. Enhanced metal balcony railings.245BDEHGCFMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Metal Awning5. Metal Railing42495495 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-22PERSPECTIVES6 PLEX STACKED FLATSSPANISHEUROPEAN HERITAGE134521154Spanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Tight rake, where used.C. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.D. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.E. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.F. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.G. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.H. Vertically proportioned windows.ACDEFGHEuropean Heritage Style ElementsA. Main roof hip or gable with intersecting gable with pitches6:12 to 12:12 where applicable.B. Flat concrete tile roof in cool tones.C. Stucco finish wall materials in medium light to mediumvalue subdued hues of taupe, warm gray, yellow and greenand warm-toned whites.D. Siding accents (horizontal or vertical) at enhanced areas.E. Appropriately sized and minimally detailed trim and detailsin warm tones of gray, blue gray, brown and gray-green, inmedium to dark value.F. Window grid on all upper levels.ACBDEFMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Decorative Tile4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof Tile623Material Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Brick Veneer5. Metal Railing6. Concrete Flat Roof Tile496496 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-28PERSPECTIVESSMALL PAIRED HOMESCONTEMPORARY BCONTEMPORARY A1624Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. Stucco Trim4. Metal Railing5. Metal Awning6. CMU Wall3Contemporary B Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Contrasting form and / or material defining colors consistingof stucco, metal, or fiber cement siding.C. Minimal window trims with contrasting neutral tones.D. Bold, contemporary accent colors.E. Enhanced wood-look veneer.F. Cantilevered deck projections.G. Enhanced metal balcony railings.BCDEFGA12354Contemporary A Style ElementsA. Flat roof with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roofs.B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.C. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.D. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material definingcolors.E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrastingtraditional or contemporary colors.F. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalancedwindow placement.G. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.BDA6Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. CMU Wall4. Stucco Trim5. Metal Railing6. Metal AwningGFCE497 497 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-29PERSPECTIVESLARGE PAIRED HOMESSPANISHMaterial Legend1. Stucco2. Stucco Trim3. Fiber Cement Siding4. Composite Railing5. Concrete "S" Roof Tile6. Decorative TileSpanish Style ElementsA. Hip, gable, or parapet walls roof components with roofpitches 3.5:12 to 5:12 where applicable.B. Concrete "S" tile roof materials with hues of terra cotta orother natural clay roof colors.C. Recessed openings at front entry or porch with rectangularor arched surrounds.D. Stucco finish with tones of whites and light to medium lightvalue warm colors.E. Stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or smoothmanufactured foam trim in medium dark value brownsreminiscent of stained wood.F. Wood beam accents, especially at porches at enhancedareas.G. Vertically proportioned windows.1243BCDEFGA56498498 Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comDRC SUBMITTALOCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC.1156 N. Mountain AvenueUpland, CA 91786NTSA-36PERSPECTIVESLIVE WORK SHOPCONTEMPORARY11123Material Legend1. Stucco2. Fiber Cement Siding3. Stucco Trim4. Metal Railing5. Metal Awning4Contemporary Style ElementsA. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional orcontemporary accent colors.B. Enhanced accents of metal, brick and / or siding.C. Contrasting form wall colors and / or material definingcolors.D. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrastingtraditional or contemporary colors.E. Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely unbalancedwindow placement.F. Bold, contemporary accent colors.G. Enhanced wood wall veneer.H. Cantilevered deck projections.I. Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs.J. Enhanced metal balcony railings.CDEFGHIBAJ5499499 1 ATTACHMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR A PROJECT WITH PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following analysis addresses the potential impacts from the proposed Homecoming at the Resort (proposed Project) in relation to the analysis presented in the Empire Lakes/Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified in May 2016 (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR or Final EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083). The discussion below is formatted to address each of the thresholds addressed in the Final EIR, and the thresholds that were addressed in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR. It should be noted that, consistent with the conclusions in the Initial Study, there are no agricultural, forestry or mineral resources located in Planning Area (PA) I of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan area, including the Project site, and no further discussion of these topical issues is provided. Applicable Project Design Features (PDFs), Regulatory Requirements (RRs), and Mitigation Measures (MMs) from the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR are incorporated into the proposed Project, some of which are specifically referenced below. 1.0 AESTHETICS Threshold 1.1 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed Project involves the development of 867 apartment homes, commercial/retail uses, and a clubhouse/leasing center within PAI of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan area south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway. The proposed development complies with the development standards in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan and the Design Concept for view corridors, including along The Resort Parkway (referred to previously as The Vine). Consistent with the approved Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Project (Approved Project) and the analysis in the Final EIR, due to the proposed Project’s location in the southern area of the City and the lack of scenic resources in the immediate area, the proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic resource. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project. Threshold 1.2 Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The types and methods of construction activities for the proposed Project are consistent with those identified and evaluated in the Final EIR. Construction staging will be located as far as possible from existing residential neighborhoods east of the Specific Plan area, and perimeter screening will be installed around the Project site, which will obstruct views of ongoing construction activities from adjacent ground level vantage points (PDF 1-2). Trees previously located at the Project site have been removed and mass grading has been completed. As presented in the building elevations and site plan in the Project Description, the proposed Project complies with the development standards and design guidelines (architectural and landscape) identified in the Specific Plan, including height restrictions (refer to PDF 1-1), and will create a visually cohesive urban community. Consistent with the conclusions in the Final EIR, the proposed Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings during construction or operation resulting in a less than significant impact. No new or substantially more severe 500 500 2 impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 1.3 Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The types and methods of construction activities for the proposed Project are consistent with those identified and evaluated in the Final EIR. Construction staging will be located as far as possible from residential neighborhoods east of the Specific Plan area, and temporary nighttime lighting will face downward and be shielded to minimize casting light into the sky and lighting intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods (refer to MM 1-1). As required, a lighting plan and photometric analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project to demonstrate compliance with the lighting design requirements outlined in the Specific Plan and to ensure that proposed lighting does not spill over into adjacent uses. Further, as shown on the building elevations, the exterior building facades would primarily feature building materials (e.g., stucco finish, fiber cement siding, masonry and brick veneer) that adhere to the architectural and landscape development standards and design guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan and ensure that these materials will not result in potential glare impacts. Consistent with the conclusions in the Final EIR, the proposed Project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area during construction or operation. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The proposed Project is located in PAI of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan area and, consistent with the analysis presented in the Initial Study of the Draft EIR, is not within the viewshed of a State scenic highway. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 2.0 AIR QUALITY Threshold 2.1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in a significant and unavoidable conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) due to long-term emissions of nonattainment pollutants exceeding SCAQMD significance thresholds and project trip generation substantially greater than the trip generation anticipated in the City’s General Plan for PAI. The proposed Project involves the development of 867 residential units, an approximately 16,000-sf clubhouse/leasing center, and approximately 21,700 sf of commercial/retail space within PAI south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway. To date, 511 residentials units implementing the Specific Plan have been approved by the Planning Commission for development in the PAI and are under construction; up to 3,450 units were approved under the Specific Plan. Additionally, the approved Club on 6th Street will open in October 2019. The combined total of the approved and proposed development, including the proposed Project is 1,378 units, which is within the maximum number of units allowed by the Specific Plan south of 6th Street (up to 1,450 units). 501 501 3 Based on the population and employment generation factors used in the Final EIR (3.04 residents per dwelling unit and 590 square feet per employee), the proposed Project will generate approximately 2,636 new residents and 37 potential jobs in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (compared to up to 10,488 new residents and up to 373 jobs assumed in the Final EIR). The proposed Project is consistent with the Approved Project, will not generate new population or vehicular trips beyond those anticipated in the Final EIR, and incorporates applicable Final EIR RRs and MMs discussed in the analysis below. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR. The SCAQMD adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in March 2017 (after certification of the Final EIR). The 2016 AQMP incorporates the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) latest growth forecasts as presented in the SCAG 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016–2040 RTP/SCS). These updated growth projections in the RTP/SCS include the growth that will occur from implementation of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, including the proposed Project. Thus, no conflict with the 2016 AQMP would occur with the proposed Project and no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 2.2 Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Construction-Related Impacts Maximum daily construction air pollutant emissions were estimated in the Final EIR to compare with limits (thresholds) established by the SCAQMD. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were determined to be potentially significant; the maximum average daily NOx emissions were estimated to be 128 pounds per day, compared with the SCAQMD threshold of 100 pounds per day. Emissions of all other pollutants were determined to be below the SCAQMD thresholds. The Final EIR concluded that with incorporation of RRs and MMs, regional and local construction emissions from the Approved Project, including NOx emissions, would be less than significant. The Final EIR analysis concludes that with implementation of MM 2-1, which requires that all “off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards,” the maximum average daily NOx emissions would be 91 pounds per day, compared with the SCAQMD threshold of 100 pounds per day. The proposed Project incorporates MM 2-1, which will also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), and fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5); RR 2-1 and RR 2-2, which will reduce fugive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5); and MM 2-2, which includes construction-related measures to further reduce criteria pollutant emissions. The Final EIR analysis scenario of maximum emissions assumed concurrent activities at various locations within PAI. One of the assumed concurrent activities was mass grading that included the simultaneous operation of 2 excavators (162 hp), 1 grader (171 hp), 1 dozer (255 hp), 2 scrapers (361 hp), and 2 tractor/loader/backhoes (97 hp). Because the mass grading activities for the Project site and adjacent areas have been completed, the construction activities for the proposed Project will not overlap with mass grading. Construction of the proposed Project will involve the use of the same types of construction equipment assumed in the Final EIR for post-mass grading activities and in compliance with the identified RRs and MMs. The type and amount of equipment to be used during remaining construction activities for the proposed Project will vary on a daily basis but will be within the average maximums set forth in the Final EIR. As an example, post-grading building site equipment used in the EIR scenario – at each active site – includes 1 crane (226 hp), 3 forklifts (89 hp), 1 generator (84 hp), 3 502 502 4 tractor/loader/backhoes (97 hp), and 1 welder (46 hp)1. Additional equipment is used for paving and architectural coating (painting). It is anticipated that three approved projects in the Specific Plan area south of 6th Street and east of The Resort Parkway will be in various stages of construction concurrently with the proposed Project. The approved projects include the 296-unit Van Daele Homes Project, the 135-unit The New Home Company Project, and the 80-unit TriPointe Homes project. To assess the impact of the concurrent construction of the proposed Project and the three previously approved projects and confirm the impacts are consistent with those disclosed in the Final EIR, the potential emissions were calculated with the CalEEMod emissions model. Each of the four sites was assumed to be operating the post-grading equipment described above. Additionally, two sites were assumed to be operating paving and painting equipment. The model input also included truck trips for the four projects. The model results indicate a maximum NOx emission rate of 88 pounds per day. Thus, the emissions, would not exceed the 100 pounds per day SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the equipment and truck emissions from daily construction activities from the proposed Project, and other projects in PAI south of 6th Street under construction concurrenlty will not exceed that estimated in the air quality analysis presented in the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Operational Emissions Even with adherence to Final EIR RRs and MMs, long-term operational regional emissions of ozone (O3) precursors (VOC and NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5 due to mobile and consumer product sources from the Approved Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The proposed Project implements the Approved Project with the development of 867 apartment homes, approximately 21,700 sf of commercial/retail uses, an approximately 16,000-sf clubhouse/leasing center, and associated recreation/open space areas. To date, no units are occupied in PAI but 511 units and the Club on 6th Street have been approved and are under construction. The proposed Project incorporates or will otherwise comply with Final EIR RR 2-3 (which requires compliance with SCAQMD Rules 201 and 203); RR 2-4 (no wood burning devices will be installed); RR 2-5 (provision of bicycle parking); and RR 2-6 (compliance with odor, particulate matter, and air containment standards); and incorporation of Final EIR MM 2-3 (compliance with provisions of the CALGreen Code), MMs 2-4 and 2-5 (provision for electric vehicles and alternative-fueled vehicles and bicyle parking), and MM 2-6 (limited truck idling and actions to encourage transit use). As discussed in Section 13.0, Transportation/Traffic, of this evaluation, the proposed Project is consistent with the development assumptions for Parcels S-14 through S-18 and Parcel S-24 contained in the Final EIR and supporting Traffic Impact Analysis. As concluded in the Traffic Memorandum included in Attachment C of this document, it is estimated that the trip generation for the proposed Project, and in conjunction with the previously approved 511 units, will be consistent with that assumed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Additionally, the proposed Project and associated operations will be consistent with that anticipated in the Final EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 1 The horsepower data are those specified in the CalEEMod emissions model and represent averages for actual equipment that would be found on site. 503 503 5 Threshold 2.3 Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in less than significant cumulative regional and local construction emissions with the incorporation of MM 2-1 and MM 2-2. It was also concluded that the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative long-term regional emissions of O3 precursors (VOC and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5, which are all nonattainment pollutants, due to mobile and consumer products sources. As discussed above, the proposed Project incorporates applicable Final EIR RRs and MMs, is consistent with the construction-related and operational aspects of the Approved Project, and is consistent with the assumptions used for the air quality analyses in the Final EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed residential uses and open space amenities will result. Threshold 2.4 Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact related to (1) off-site CO hotspots, (2) exposure of persons to construction and operational phase criteria pollutants, (3) exposure of persons to construction and operational phase toxic air contaminants (TACs) generated on site, and (4) TAC on-site impacts from off-site warehouse/distribution center and train operations. Existing sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed Project are the residential uses to the east of PAI (east of The Resort Parkway and approved uses in PAI); these residential uses were identified in the Final EIR and potential exposure of residences to pollutants were addressed. As identified above, the Traffic Memorandum for the proposed Project concludes that the trip generation for the proposed Project, and in conjunction with the previously approved 511 units and Club on 6th Street, will be consistent with that assumed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. The proposed Project will not increase average vehicle delay at any intersection beyond that anticipated in the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in the creation of a CO hot spot, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. As discussed in the Project Description, the construction activities associated with the proposed Project, and the type of construction activities) will not exceed the construction assumptions that were the basis for the analysis in the Final EIR. Therefore, construction activities for the proposed Project will not expose off-site receptors to significant criteria pollutant emissions and the impact will be less than significant. Further, toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction will also be less than significant. The proposed residental units, commercial/retail uses, and associated recreational/open space amenities, which are consistent with the uses assumed in the Final EIR, will not involve any on-site uses or operations that will generate TACs. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The Initial Study prepared for the Draft EIR concluded that construction-related odors associated with the Approved Project would be temporary, would not affect a substantial number of people, and would be less than significant. It also concluded that odors from operation of proposed uses would be no different than in surrounding development, would not be considered objectionable, and would be less than significant. The proposed residential uses, commerical/retail uses, and associated open space 504 504 6 amenities will not involve any construction activities, uses, or activities that were not anticipated for the Approved Project and analyzed in the Final EIR. Further, as required by RR 2-6, the proposed uses would operate in compliance with established standards in Section 17.66.060, Odor, Particulate Matter, and Air Containment Standards, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. These standards address compliance with the rules and regulations of the air pollution control district and the state Health and Safety Code related to noxious odor emissions and location of exhaust air ducts away from abutting residentially zoned properties. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Threshold 3.1 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Final EIR concluded that PAI did not support native plant communities and did not provide suitable habitat for sensitive biological resources. As shown on the Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype presented in the Project Description of this document, the physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within PAI and does not include any areas that were not part of the Approved Project development area that was analyzed in the Final EIR. The Project site has been mass graded, and vegetation previously found at the site (including trees) has been removed in accordance with permits issued by the City. Therefore, the Project site does not provide habitat for species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 3.2 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Threshold 3.3 Would the project 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? The Final EIR concluded that that there were no wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or areas under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USFWS, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) located within PAI, including the previous artificial ponds associated with the golf course. The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within PAI and does not include any areas that were not part of the Approved Project development area analyzed in the Final EIR. The Project site has been mass graded, and the artificial ponds and vegetation previously found at the site have been removed in accordance with permits issued by the City. Therefore, the Project site does not include wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or areas under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, USACE, USFWS or RWQCB. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 505 505 7 Threshold 3.4 Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The Final EIR concluded that redevelopment of the previous Empire Lakes Golf Course would not affect regional wildlife movement throughout the Inland Empire or within the South Coast region and would not disrupt or adversely affect terrestrial wildlife species movement due to the lack of connectivity of the Specific Plan area with other open space areas. It was also concluded that removal of artificial ponds at the golf course would have a less than significant impact on migrating waterfowl and avian species. The Final EIR identified that vegetation and trees throughout the golf course had the potential to provide nesting opportunities for various birds and raptor species but compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, which protect nesting birds and raptors (refer to RR 3-1 and RR 3-2) would ensure that impacts to nesting birds and raptors are less than significant. The vegetation and trees located at the Project site have been removed and mass grading activities have been completed. Construction of the proposed Project, which is located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, will not involve any activities with the potential to disrupt nesting birds or raptor species. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 3.5 Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Trees previously located within PAI, as identified in the Final EIR, have been removed in accordance with required tree removal permits issued by the City. There are no trees currently located on the Project site and the proposed Project will not conflict with the City’s tree protection policies outlined in the City’s Development Code (i.e., Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation, and Section 17.16.80). No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP); or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES Threshold 4.1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? The Final EIR concluded that although not anticipated, there was a potential for discovery of previously unknown archaeological resources during deeper excavation activities in native sediment during construction activities in PAI. Potential impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures, which identify actions to be taken if resources are discovered (refer to MM 4-1 and MM 4-2). Mass grading activities for the Approved Project in the area south of 6th Street, including the Project site, have been completed and no archaeological resources were discovered. 506 506 8 It should be noted that, as with the Approved Project, the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 are not applicable to the proposed Project. AB 52 is applicable to projects that have a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. The NOP for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR was distributed in April 2015. AB 52 establishes a consultation process with California Native American tribes and establishes Tribal Cultural Resources as a new class of resources to be considered in the determination of project impacts and mitigation. AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed Project, if they have requested such notice in writing. While project notification pursuant to AB 52 is not required for the proposed Project, it is important to note that coordination with Native American tribes was conducted during preparation of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment EIR (refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR). The required mitigation measures will also protect unknown tribal cultural resources should they be present at the Project site, although no tribal cultural resources were encountered during mass grading activities at the site. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project, which is located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, will not impact archaeological or tribal cultural resources with the implementation of MM 4-1 and MM 4-2. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 4.2 Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The Final EIR concluded that although not anticipated, there was a potential for the discovery of previously unknown paleontological resources during deeper excavation activities in native sediment during construction activities in PAI. Potential impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures, which identify actions to be taken if resources are discovered (refer to MM 4-1, MM 4-2 and MM 4-3). Mass grading activities for the Approved Project in the area south of 6th Street, including the Project site, have been completed and no paleontological resources were discovered. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project, which is located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, will not impact paleontological resources with the implementation of MM 4-1, MM 4-2 and MM 4-3. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 4.3 Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The Final EIR identifies that it is unlikely human remains would be encountered during construction of the Approved Project, and with adherence to State regulations (i.e., Sections 7050.5–7055 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code), impacts would be less than significant in the event human remains are discovered. Mass grading activities for the Approved Project in the area south of 6th Street, including the Project site, have been completed and no human remains were discovered. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project, which is located entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, will not impact human remains. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 507 507 9 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, no historic resources were identified in PAI and no impact to historic resources would result from implementation of the Approved Project. The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR. No historic resources exist on the Project site, which has been mass graded. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 5.0 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Thresholds 5.1 and 5.2 Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Strong seismic ground shaking, or (ii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project and there have been no changes related to seismicity or local geologic conditions. Additionally, there are no proposed changes to the type of land uses to be developed at the Project site. Consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, due to site conditions (groundwater depth at 350 feet or more below the ground surface), the potential for seismic-related ground failure from liquefaction will be low, resulting in a less than significant impact. This is confirmed by the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation that was completed in April 20172 for the Specific Plan area, including the Project site. However, as with the Approved Project, the proposed Project will expose people and structures to geotechnical hazards associated with seismic ground shaking and potential geology and soils impacts will be the same. Mass grading of the Project site has been completed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Feasibility Study (refer to RR 5-2 and MM 5-1); applicable portions of the California Building Code and/or applicable City ordinances (refer to RRs 5-1 and 5-2); and recommendations identified in supplemental project-specific geotechnical investigations (refer to MM 5-1). The proposed Project will also be constructed in accordance with the identified recommendations resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 5.3 Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Mass grading activities at the Project site have been completed and were conducted in accordance with applicable requirements identified in the Final EIR and subsequent site-specific geotechnical investigations. Construction activities for the proposed Project will be consistent with those identified and analyzed in the Final EIR; will occur within the physical impact area for the Approved Project; and will also be conducted in accordance with applicable building requirements. As identified in the Final EIR, the Project site is located in a soil erosion hazard area, and there is potential for soil erosion during construction. However, this impact is less than significant with adherence to local and State regulations adopted to limit fugitive dust and erosion into surface waters. 2 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (LOR). 2017 (April). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Empire Lakes Golf Course, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, Project No. 30631G.11. 508 508 10 Chapter 17.66.060 of the City’s Development Code requires development projects to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requirements for control of fugitive dust (refer to RR 2-1 and RR 5-3). Further, construction activities will be conducted in adherence to applicable local and State water quality requirements, including the implementation of erosion-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements (refer to RR 8-3). As concluded in the Final EIR, once the proposed Project is operational, the potential for soil erosion via wind and water will be minimized through the introduction of development, including roads, buildings, paved areas, and landscaping. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with requirements in the City’s Development Code to control soil erosion, among other purposes (refer to RR 5-4). No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 5.4 Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR and the Final EIR, PAI, which includes the Project site, is not located in an area subject to landslides or liquefaction. The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project and there have been no changes related to seismicity or local geologic conditions. Additionally, there are no proposed changes to the type of land uses to be developed at the Project site. The proposed Project will be exposed to the same geotechnical issues related to unstable soils as the Approved Project and will be constructed in accordance with the recommendations from applicable geotechnical investigations. Mass grading operations have been completed at the site and the surrounding area in accordance with applicable portions of the California Building Code and the recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, and the Mass Grading Plan (LOR 2018a)3. Further, unsuitable soils were removed during mass grading activities as reported in the Compaction and Materials Testing Report prepared to document geotechnical observations, compaction testing, and materials testing conducted during the address mass grading for TTM No. 20073, which includes the Project site (LOR 2018b)4. Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable soil are less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 5.5 Would the project 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? The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR and onsite soils have a very low potential for expansion. This conclusion was confirmed in the May 2018 Compaction and Materials Testing Report prepared for mass grading of TTM No. 20073, which includes the Project site. No new or substantially more severe impacts 3 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (LOR). 2018a (March). Geotechnical Building Pad Certification Letter, The Resort, Tentative Tract No. 20073, Rancho Cucamonga, California. 4 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (LOR). 2018b (May). Compaction and Materials Testing Report, The Resort Mass Grading, Tentative Tract No. 20073, Rancho Cucamonga, California. 509 509 11 will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake 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.) • Landslides? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, PAI is not within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults are known to exist in or near the Project site. Also, the low relief of the site and surrounding area precludes the potential for landslides. This is confirmed by the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation that was completed in April 2017. The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR; therefore, no impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault will result. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Consistent with the conclusions of the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the proposed Project will connect to existing sewer lines and treatment facilities, and septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system will not be utilized. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 6.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Threshold 6.1 Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The proposed Project implements the Approved Project with the development of 867 apartment homes, approximately 21,700 sf of commercial/retail uses, an approximately 16,000-sf clubhouse/leasing center, and associated recreation/open space areas. To date, no units are occupied in PAI; however, development of 511 units and the Club on 6th have been approved and are under construction. Together, the currently proposed and previously approved residential units total 1,378 units, which is within the maximum number of units allowed by the Specific Plan south of 6th Street (up to 1,450 units). Further, no commercial/retail uses have been previously approved in PAI. Therefore, the proposed commercial/retail uses comply with the Specific Plan, which requires a minimum of 20,000 gross square feet (gsf) of non-residential uses be provided within the Mixed-Use Overlay area south of 6th Street; the maximum amount of non-residential development allowed in the Mixed-Use Overlay in PAI is 85,000 sf. The proposed Project incorporates or will otherwise comply with Final EIR MMs and RRs identified previously under air quality, which may also serve to reduce GHG emissions; RR 6-1 (adherence to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards); RRs 6-2 and 6-4 (adherence to applicable California Green Building Standards as designated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Green Building Compliance Matrices); RR 6-3 (installation of recycled water systems); PDF 6-1 (tree planting); and MM 6-1 (use of energy efficient lights and appliances). As discussed in Section 13.0, Transportation/Traffic, of this evaluation, the 510 510 12 proposed Project is consistent with the residential and non-residential development assumptions for Parcels S-14 through S-18 and S-24 contained in the Final EIR and supporting Traffic Impact Analysis. As concluded in the Traffic Memorandum, it is estimated that the trip generation for the proposed Project, in conjunction with the previously approved 511 units, will be consistent with that assumed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. The proposed residential units, commercial/retail uses, and recreation/open space amenities and associated operations will be consistent with that anticipated in the Final EIR. Further, as discussed in the Project Description, the construction methods and equipment will be similar to that anticipated in the Final EIR. Therefore, the estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from operation of the proposed Project and construction activities (amortized over 30 years) would not exceed the GHG emissions assumed for the Approved Project and will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 6.2 Would the conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions? The proposed Project implements the Approved Project and does not involve any changes to the type or amount of allowed land uses, or the amount of GHG emissions that would be generated during construction and operation. Specifically, the proposed Project involves development of 867 units of the assumed up to 3,450 residential units within PAI; approximately 21,700 sf of the allowed maximum 85,000 sf of non-residential uses in the Mixed-Use Overlay area in PAI; and supporting recreational/open space uses. Consistent with the conclusion of the Final EIR that the Approved Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed Project, which implements the Approved Project (Empire Lakes Specific Plan) will also not conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 7.0 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Threshold 7.1 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed Project does not involve any changes to the type of land uses, number of residential units, or amount of non-residential (commercial/retail) uses to be developed as part of the Approved Project in PAI. Therefore, compared to the Approved Project, there will be no change in the types of hazardous materials that will be used during construction and operation of the proposed Project. As with the Approved Project, through compliance with existing applicable hazardous materials regulations (e.g., Hazardous Material Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA], the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program included as RR 7-1 and RR 7-2 in the Final EIR), and RR 7-3 (compliance with hazardous materials reporting requirements for businesses), the proposed Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This impact will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 511 511 13 Threshold 7.2 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. The previous golf course use and hazardous materials used for golf course operations have been removed and the Project site has been mass graded. Consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, the previous use of hazardous materials at the Project site or in the vicinity will not 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. The proposed Project implements the Approved Project and short-term construction activities and long-term operations will be consistent with that addressed in the Final EIR. Also, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, construction and operation of the proposed Project will involve the use of hazardous materials that are typically associated with an urban environment. These materials will be transported, used, stored, and disposed of in compliance with applicable regulations (refer to RR 7-1 and RR 7-2) and will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 7.3 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or people residing or working in the project area? The Ontario International Airport is located approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the Approved Project, which, in turn, is in the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established by the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). Specifically, the Approved Project is within the Airspace Protection Zones for the airport. The proposed Project implements the Approved Project and will not change the type or use or structures to be built at the Project site. In accordance with PDF 7-1, the proposed Project complies with the height restrictions outlined in Table 7.4, Development Standards, of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Specifically, no buildings will exceed the 60-foot height limit for the area south of 6th Street. Further, construction activities, Project structures, and operations will adhere to applicable requirements outlined in the ONT ALUCP as presented in RR 7-4: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Subpart C, and applicable obstruction clearance standards published by the FAA; avigation easement; and real estate transaction disclosure. Compliance with applicable ONT ALUCP requirements will ensure that potential safety hazards related to airport operations are less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, PAI, which includes the Project site, is not within ¼-mile of a school. There have been no changes to the location of the proposed Project or schools in the area. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Would the project 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? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, PAI, which includes the Project site, is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant 512 512 14 to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project site is now undeveloped and is also not on a current list of hazardous materials sites. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 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? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of PAI, which includes the Project site. There have been no changes to the location of the proposed Project or private airstrips in the area. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, the Approved Project does not include any uses that would impede or interfere with implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and would not exacerbate existing hazard conditions addressed in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The proposed Project implements the Approved Project and does not involve a change in the type or location of uses in PAI, or a change in access and planned roadways. Therefore, consistent with the Approved Project, the proposed Project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Would the project 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? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, PAI, which includes the Project site, is not in an area subject to wildland fires. There have been no changes to the location of the proposed Project or identification of high fire hazard areas in the vicinity of the Project site. Further, the Project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)5, and is not within a State Responsibility Area6. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 8.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Threshold 8.1 Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Threshold 8.2 Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project and the receiving water bodies will be the same. Additionally, there are no proposed changes to the type of land uses to be developed at the Project site. The type of construction activities and equipment for the proposed Project will also be the same as analyzed in the 5 Based on review of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (Cal Fire) Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP) accessed September 17, 2019 at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. 6 The State Responsibility Area is the land where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires. The SRA does not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership. 513 513 15 Final EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, the types of pollutants that will be generated by the proposed Project during construction and operation will be the same as the Approved Project. The proposed Project incorporates RR 8-1, which addresses compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) and implementation of the Project’s SWPPP during construction. Further, as with the Approved Project, the proposed Project will comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and all applicable City, County, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations and water quality standards including compliance with applicable NPDES and municipal separate storm sewer (MS4) permit requirements. Notably, a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)7 has been prepared for the proposed Project (per RR 8-2), which is consistent with the Master Plan of Storm Water Quality prepared for the Approved Project. Additionally, operation of proposed uses will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 19.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which is the City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (per RR 8-3). Stormwater runoff and nuisance flows from the Project site will be intercepted by area drains and catch basins throughout the site. Before the water leaves the Project site, an in-line 60-inch retention pipe will retain the water quality flows while attached Torrent Resources Maxwell Plus drainage systems treat and infiltrate the water quality runoff. Compliance with RR 8-1 through RR 8-3 and implementation of the Project-specific SWPPP and WQMP will prevent violations of water quality standards and the degradation of storm water quality. Water quality impacts will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 8.3 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? Threshold 8.4 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? The proposed Project implements the Approved Project, and the physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the impact area addressed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. There are no proposed changes to the type of land uses to be developed at the Project site (residential, commercial/retail, and recreation/open space), the pattern of development relative to pervious and impervious areas, and the proposed storm drain system. Therefore, the increase in the amount and rate of runoff that will be generated by development of the Project site will be consistent with the estimated runoff volume and rate as accounted for in the Approved Project, and the required storm drain facilities will be the same. The proposed onsite drainage will be a combination of surface flow and pipe flow with area drains around buildings and catch basins in streets, intercepting runoff. Storm water runoff from the proposed development will be routed through storm drain laterals to the storm drain and water quality retention system/100-year storm detention system. As anticipated with the Approved Project, storm water from Project site will flow to the storm drain line in The Resort Parkway, which will flow in a southerly direction toward the 4th Street storm drain in the City of Ontario, consistent with the pre-development drainage patterns. The drainage and detention system provides for the retention and infiltration of 7 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Tentative Tract No. 20118 prepared by Madole & Associates, Inc. (August 28, 2019). 514 514 16 water quality flows as well as conveyance of storm water and accommodates the 100-year storm water runoff. As identified in the Final EIR, PAI, including the Project site, is in the defined hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC)-exempt area on the County’s on-line Stormwater Facility Mapping Tool. Therefore, additional detention (reduction) in peak runoff flows from storm events is not required. This is because runoff from the site enters the Guasti-Cucamonga Regional Park and Turner Basins. Thus, increases in runoff from development of the proposed Project will not lead to HCOCs. Changes in drainage patterns at the Project site will be consistent with that evaluated for the Approved Project in the Final EIR and will not lead to erosion, siltation, or flooding at downstream facilities. Impacts will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 8.5 Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? Threshold 8.6 Would the project 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? As identified above, there are no proposed changes to the type of land uses to be developed at the Project site or the pattern of development. Therefore, the estimated increase in the amount and rate of runoff that will be generated by development of the proposed Project will be consistent with the estimated runoff volume and rate as accounted for in the Approved Project, and the required storm drain facilities will be the same. Storm water runoff from the Approved Project, including the Project site, will increase flows in downstream lines, but will not exceed the capacities of the 4th Street Storm Drain. Storm water pollutants and storm water runoff quantities will be reduced by implementation of the Project-specific WQMP required by RR 8-2. Consistent with Final EIR conclusions for the Approved Project, no expansion of existing off-site storm drain facilities is needed for the proposed Project. Additionally, the physical impacts associated with installation of on-site storm drain facilities will be the same as evaluated for the Approved Project in the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project 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)? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, potable water service is provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), with the largest amount of water supply coming from the Chino Groundwater Basin. The analysis in the Initial Study concluded that although implementation of development in PAI will reduce the pervious areas available for potential natural recharge, the area of PAI is relatively small (160.4 acres) in relation to the total size of the Chino Groundwater Basin, and the only source of water is from direct precipitation, providing little opportunity to recharge. PAI is not within a groundwater recharge area and the Approved Project would not deplete groundwater supplies. The physical impact area for the proposed Project is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project evaluated in the Final EIR, and the proposed Project implements the Approved Project. Therefore, consistent with the conclusions for the Approved Project, the proposed Project will not interfere with 515 515 17 groundwater recharge or deplete groundwater supplies. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. Would the project 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? Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Would the project 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? Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, PAI, which includes the Project site, is (1) not within a flood hazard area, (2) not within a dam inundation area, and (3) not subject to inundation from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 9.0 LAND USE AND PLANNING Threshold 9.1 Would the proposed Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? With approval of the Empire Lakes/IASP Sub-Area Specific Plan Amendment and associated General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment, the City of Rancho Cucamonga established new land use regulations and development standards for development within PAI of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, including the Project site. The Final EIR concluded that these land use changes would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As further discussed in the Project Description of this document, the proposed Project, which involves the development of 867 apartment homes, approximately 21,700 sf of commercial/retail uses, an approximately 16,000-sf clubhouse/leasing center, and associated recreation/open space areas, implements the Approved Project (with up to 3,450 units), and complies with applicable development standards and other requirements outlined in the Empire Lake Specific Plan. As with the Approved Project, the proposed Project will not conflict with any applicable local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project physically divide an established community? The Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the Approved Project in PAI, which is surrounded by existing development, would not divide an established community. The proposed Project is located entirely within PAI, implements the Approved Project, and will not divide an established community. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 516 516 18 Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As previously discussed in the Biological Resources section of this document, PAI, which includes the Project site, is not within an adopted HCP or NCCP. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 10.0 NOISE Threshold 10.1 Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in less than significant increases in long- term ambient noise levels from project-generated traffic to off-site sensitive receptors, and at residences adjacent to the Project site from noise generated on-site by traffic on Project site roads. Additionally, the Final EIR concluded that potential noise impacts to on-site and off-site residential uses from operation of proposed uses in PAI would be less than significant with adherence to the noise standards outlined in the City’s Development Code and the California Building Standards Code. With respect to traffic-generated noise, as discussed in the Traffic Memorandum included in Attachment C, it is estimated that the trip generation for the proposed Project, and in conjunction with the previously approved development in PAI, will be consistent with that assumed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project will not increase traffic-related noise levels along roadways internal and external to PAI beyond that anticipated in the Final EIR as a result of implementation of the Approved Project. Long-term noise levels from Project-generated traffic to off- site sensitive receptors will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. Existing sensitive receptors closest to the Project site are the residential uses east of PAI. Additionally, the Project site is near approved residential uses in PAI east of The Resort Parkway (under construction), planned residential development in PAI to the north (across 6th Street), and planned mixed use development in PAI to the south of the Project site. These uses were identified in the Final EIR and there are no new sensitive receptors in proximity to the Project site. The proposed uses, operations, and activities associated with the proposed residential and non-residential development will be consistent with that anticipated in the Final EIR. Noise-generating operations/activities will comply with noise standards established in the City’s Development Code (refer to RR 10-3 and RR 10-4) and impacts will be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 10.2 Would the project expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in potentially significant construction vibration annoyance impacts to occupants of adjacent buildings (from heavy equipment operation close to buildings), but this impact is reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MM 10-1. The Final EIR also concluded there would be a less than significant impact for structural vibration impacts. The Project site, which is entirely within PAI, is east of existing non-residential office buildings to the west (beyond Cleveland Avenue), and west of existing residential uses east of PAI. Mass grading activities, which the Final EIR concluded would result in potentially significant construction vibration annoyance impacts to occupants of adjacent buildings (from heavy equipment operation close to 517 517 19 buildings), have been completed pursuant to previously issued permits. No heavy grading equipment will be used adjacent to existing structures for the remaining construction activities associated with the proposed Project. Therefore, no significant vibration annoyance or structural vibration impacts will occur with construction of the proposed residential and commercial/retail uses and associated recreation/open space areas. The proposed uses would not be a source of vibration. The Final EIR concluded that long-term vibration impacts to residences within 200 feet of the railroad tracks north of the Project site would be potentially significant, but this impact is reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MM 10-2, which requires a vibration analysis prior to the approval of building permits. The Project site is not within 200 feet of the railroad tracks; therefore, there will be no impacts to proposed residential uses from operations along the railroad. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 10.3 Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The Final EIR concluded that construction of the Approved Project would result in temporary potentially significant construction noise impacts from site preparation, demolition, grading, concrete and asphalt crushing, green waste mulching, and similar construction activities. As previously identified, there are existing office uses to the west of the Project site and existing residential uses east of PAI. Consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, even with adherence to RR 10-1 (construction day and hourly restrictions outlined the City’s Development Code), and implementation of MM 10-3 (installation of a temporary noise barrier between PAI and adjacent existing residences) and MM 10-4 (construction noise mitigation plan), these receptors may be exposed to temporary or periodic increases in noise during construction that exceed 65 dBA (A-weighted decibel scale) at existing residential uses and 70 dBA (A-weighted decibel scale) at existing office uses, resulting in a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. However, the construction activities associated with the proposed Project, including the type of equipment that will be operated on a daily basis, will not exceed the construction assumptions that were the basis for the analysis in the Final EIR. Further, mass grading activities for PAI south of 6th Street, including the Project site, which involved the use of the largest equipment and generated higher noise levels than other construction activities, have been completed. MM 10-3, which requires installation of temporary noise barrier between the construction areas and existing residences within 500-feet, was completed as part of the mass grading activities and the barrier will remain in place during construction of the proposed Project. Similarly, the construction- related noise mitigation plan developed for the mass grading activities, as required by MM 10-4, will also be applied to construction activities for the proposed Project. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 10.4 Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The Final EIR concluded that potential impacts related to operational noise that exceeds the General Plan noise and land use compatibility levels would be reduced to less than significant levels. It was concluded that future noise levels near 4th Street and 6th Street could exceed the established noise standards for interior habitable rooms of residential uses (45 dBA or less, as required by the California Building Code) and exterior noise standards identified in the City’s General Plan (Conditionally Acceptable 70 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL] noise compatibility limit). Therefore, the 518 518 20 impact to residential uses along 6th Street and 4th Street was determined to be significant prior to mitigation. Additionally, it was concluded that noise levels at 50 feet from the primary internal roads, such as The Resort Parkway, would be 60 dBA CNEL or less. Conventional construction with windows closed would provide the noise reduction required to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Exterior noise levels would be within the General Plan Conditionally Acceptable 70 dBA CNEL noise compatibility limit. No noise abatement is required. MM 10-7 requires the preparation of an acoustic study for buildings adjacent to 6th Street to demonstrate that with proposed architectural features residential habitable rooms facing 6th Street have interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less, and to demonstrate that exterior noise levels of exterior use areas do not exceed 70 dBA CNEL. The proposed Project includes residential uses with habitable rooms and exterior use areas adjacent to 6th Street. The required acoustic study has been prepared for the proposed Project and is provided in Attachment B to this document. The only exposed exterior areas for the proposed Project are the balconies and patios for the residential units along 6th Street. The acoustic study demonstrates that with the incorporation of windows and doors with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of no less than 28 for habitable rooms, and the installation of solid barriers 5 feet high at the porches and decks facing 6th Street, the established interior and exterior noise standards will be met. The Final EIR concluded that construction noise from the Approved Project would potentially exceed the noise level limits established in the City’s Development Code resulting in a potentially significant noise impact. With implementation of RRs and MMs, impacts from construction noise that exceed the City Development Code requirements would be reduced, but not to a less than significant level. This impact is significant and unavoidable for the Approved Project. As described in the Project Description, construction activities associated with the proposed Project will be consistent with the construction assumptions that were the basis for the analysis in the Final EIR. Further, mass grading activities for PAI south of 6th Street and including the Project site, which involved the use of the largest equipment and generated higher noise levels than other construction activities, have been completed. MM 10-3 and MM 10-4 were implemented for the mass grading operations and will remain in effect during remaining construction activities for the proposed Project. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? The Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR identified that the 60 dBA CNEL contour for the Ontario International Airport does not lie within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) identifies that Rancho Cucamonga is not an affected jurisdiction for noise. Additionally, PAI is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Consistent with the conclusion of the Initial Study, the proposed residential uses, which are within PAI, are not within the 60 dBA CNEL contour for the Ontario International Airport and will not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 519 519 21 11.0 POPULATION AND HOUSING Threshold 11.1 Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed Project involves the development of 867 residential units, an approximately 16,000-sf clubhouse/leasing center, and approximately 21,700 sf of commercial/retail space within PAI south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway. To date, 511 residentials units implementing the Specific Plan have been approved by the Planning Commission for development in PAI and are under construction. Additionally, the Club on 6th Street has been approved for development. The combined total of the approved and proposed development, including the proposed Project is 1,378 units, which is within the maximum number of units allowed by the Specific Plan (3,450 units, including 1,450 units south of 6th Street). Based on the population and employment generation factors used in the Final EIR (3.04 residents per dwelling unit and 590 square feet per employee), the proposed Project will generate approximately 2,636 new residents and 37 potential jobs in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (compared to up to 10,488 new residents and up to 373 jobs assumed in the Final EIR). The proposed Project is consistent with the Approved Project and will not generate new population or jobs beyond that anticipated in the Final EIR. It should also be noted that SCAG’s latest growth forecasts as presented in the SCAG 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, adopted after certification of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR, include the growth that will occur from implementation of the Approved Project, including the proposed Project. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? As identified in the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, PAI was previously developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course and the Approved Project would not displace housing or people. The Project site has been mass graded and there is no existing development. The proposed Project involves the development of residential units on the undeveloped site and will not displace housing or people. No new impacts will result with implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 12.0 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Thresholds 12.1 through 12.4 Would the proposed 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: • Fire Protection? • Police Protection? • Schools? • Libraries? 520 520 22 The proposed Project implements the Approved Project and involves the development of 867 apartment homes, approximately 21,700 sf of commercial/retail uses, an approximately 16,000 sf clubhouse/leasing center, and associated recreation/open space areas with PAI. The increased demand on public services (i.e., fire and police services and libraries) and the potential increase in students from the proposed Project requiring school services, along with the previously approved and proposed developments in PAI, will not exceed that assumed and evaluated in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the proposed Project incorporates RR 12-1 (compliance with applicable codes, ordinances and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) Fire Protection Standards and Guidance Documents); RR 12-2 (payment of applicable development impact fees to the City for public services); and RR 12-4 (payment of developer fees to the impacted school districts). Further, the proposed Project incorporates Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) features (refer to PDF 12-1). The City has also purchased a site for a potential future fire station (refer to PDF 12-4). Potential impacts to public services will be less than significant, consistent with conclusions of the Final EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 12.5 Would the proposed 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 parks? Threshold 12.6 Would the proposed Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Threshold 12.7 Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed Project implements the Approved Project and involves the development of 867 apartment homes, 21,700 sf of commercial/retail uses, an approximately 16,000 sf clubhouse/leasing center, and associated recreation/open space areas with PAI. The increased demand on park and recreational facilities from the proposed Project along with the previously approved development in PAI will not exceed that assumed and evaluated in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the proposed Project will require payment of the City’s Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee (RR 12-2), and dedication of land, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of both for the provision of neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes (RR 12-3). Compliance with requirements and the provision of park and recreational facilities throughout PAI, as identified in the Specific Plan, will ensure that impacts to parks will be less than significant, consistent with conclusions of the Final EIR. The proposed clubhouse/leasing center is in Parcel S-24 REC (recreation areas) identified in the Specific Plan south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway (previously The Vine), and implements PDF 12-3 (which identifies that central community recreation areas will be constructed). The proposed Project also includes private open space areas for each unit, and common open space areas and amenities. The physical impacts associated with construction and use of the clubhouse and associated recreational amenities and open space areas throughout the Projects site have been analyzed in the Final EIR and 521 521 23 this document. No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 13.0 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Threshold 13.1 Would the project conflict with any 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? The Final EIR concluded that vehicle trips generated by operation of the Empires Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Project (Approved Project) would lead to study area intersections and freeway facilities operating at deficient level of service (LOS) (exceeding City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Ontario, and/or Caltrans standards). Even with implementation of RR 13-2 and RR 13-3, and MM 13-1 through MM 13-4, impacts would remain significant due to the lack of feasible mitigation or because the Property Owner/Developer or the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot guarantee the implementation of improvements in another jurisdiction (i.e., in the City of Ontario and on Caltrans facilities). Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified at I-10 and I-15 mainline segments and ramps under the Existing Year (2014) and/or Completion Year (2024) Plus Project and Cumulative Year (2036) traffic analysis scenarios. The proposed Project involves the development of 867 apartment homes, 21,700 sf of commercial/retail uses, an approximately 16,000-sf clubhouse/leasing center, and associated recreation/open space areas in PAI of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan area. There are currently no residental units occupied in PAI, but 511 units have been approved and construction of the approved projects has been initiated. Fehr & Peers conducted an analysis of the proposed Project to determine its consistency with the Approved Project as it relates to the traffic analysis assumptions that were the basis for the Final EIR Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for and presented in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR. The Lewis Management Corporation Mixed Use 867 Unit Development Traffic Memo – Empire Lakes prepared by Fehr & Peers (October 2019) is provided in Attachment C of this document (Traffic Memorandum). As presented in the Traffic Memorandum, the proposed Project is consistent with the Approved Project with respect to location (within the Specific Plan area); size (the proposed Project, along with the previously approved 511 units, would not exceed 1,450 units assumed in the Specific Plan area south of 6th Street); density (approximately 22 du/ac for the proposed Project compared to 16-28 du/ac allowed in Parcels S-15 through S-18, and 18-35 du/ac allowed in Parcel S-14); and access design (adheres to the Specific Plan guidelines and City standards). Access to the Project site is generally consistent with that assumed in the Final EIR TIA. The Final EIR TIA assumed access from The Resort Parkway and from 6th Street via intersections 201 (now referred to as The Loop Road), 202 (where the roundabout intersection is located), and 203 (refer to Figure 1 of the Traffic Memorandum). However, the Final EIR TIA did not assume any access directly from 6th Street (the proposed Project includes two access points from 6th Street). In general, the access from 6th Street will reduce traffic on The Resort Parkway and through the 6th Street/The Resort Parkway intersection, which would provide for better accessibility and better operations. A review of trip generation from the proposed Project was conducted. As described in the Traffic Memorandum, the same mixed-use trip generation methodology used in the Final TIA (referred to as mixed-use development [MXD] trip generation) has been used to estimate proposed Project trips given 522 522 24 the introduction of some commercial/retail as part of the proposed Project and the overall Project’s proximity to attractors in the area. The estimated trip generation from the proposed Project is 391 AM peak hour trips, 501 PM peak hour trips and 5,547 average daily trips (ADT). The trips generated from the proposed Project in conjunction with previously approved development in PAI is estimated to be 618 AM peak hour trips, 774 PM peak hour trips, and 8,569 ADT, which is within the total number of peak hour trips and ADT anticipated for PAI south of 6th Street (the Final EIR TIA estimated 682 AM peak hour trips, 897 PM peak hour trips and 11,236 ADT for PAI south of 6th Street). Therefore, the TIA for the Approved Project accounted for the proposed Project. There will not be an increase in trip generation with the proposed Project compared to that assumed in the TIA and, with implementation of applicable PDFs, RRs, and MMs, no new or substantially more severe traffic impacts at study intersections or freeway mainline segements will result. With respect to construction-related traffic, as identified in the Project Description, the finish grading required for the proposed Project will occur over a limited period of time (approximately 3 months) and would not require import or export of soils outside of PAI. Some soil (approximately 25,000 cubic yards) is expected to be exported to other areas internal to the PAI and it is estimated there will be 10-12 short, internal heavy trips per day related to the finish grading efforts. Additionally, there will be heavy truck trips associated with other construction activities for the import of materials, concrete, etc. (estimated to be approximately 8-10 heavy truck trips per day). The number of heavy truck trips for the proposed Project will be a relatively small portion of the estimated 50 heavy trucks on a daily basis in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Construction activities and associated truck travel will be required to comply with applicable City requirements, including Chapter 10.56, Truck Routes and Restrictions, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (refer to Regulatory Requirement [RR] 13-4). No new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 13.2 Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion? The Final EIR concluded that San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP)-designated intersections and freeway facilities would operate at a deficient LOS with the Approved Project. Identified mitigation for certain intersections is not feasible and/or the Property Owner/Developer and the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot guarantee implementation of mitigation in the City of Ontario or for Caltrans facilities. Impacts to CMP intersections were determined to be significant and unavoidable along with freeway mainline segments and ramps along I-10 and I-15. As described above for Threshold 13.1, there will not be an increase in trip generation with the proposed Project, or with the proposed Project in conjunction with the previously approved 511 units south of 6th Street in PAI, compared to that assumed in the TIA. As identified in the Final EIR, there is no feasible mitigation for these impacts, and/or the Property Owner/Developer or the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot guarantee the implementation of improvements in another jurisdiction. Therefore, significant and unavoidable impacts at CMP facilities identified in the Final EIR will occur with the proposed Project. No new or substantially more severe traffic impacts at study intersections or freeway mainline segements will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 523 523 25 Threshold 13.3 Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Threshold 13.4 Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would provide adequate project access and an internal circulation system (refer to PDF 13-1), which would be in compliance with applicable requirements for emergency access (refer to RR 12-1). Notably, it was determined that there would be: (1) sufficient internal accessibility throughout the site (Specific Plan area), (2) approporiate traffic- control devices, (3) adequate spacing between external access points, and (4) adequate emergency vehicle access. Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no additional mitigation was required. As demonstrated by a comparison of Figure 1, Internal Circulation Analyzed Intersections, and Figure 2, Conceptual Site Plan, of the Traffic Memorandum, the proposed Project maintains the same primary access points as the Approved Project. The proposed Project will not change the types of uses proposed in Specific Plan Parcels S-14 through S-18 and Parcel S-24, and will not change the access requirements for this area. Prior to occupany of the proposed units, required roadway and intersection improvements will be constructed by the Project Applicant. Further, the proposed Project will adhere to applicable codes, ordinances and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) Fire Protection Standards and Guidance Documents regarding access (as required by RR 12-1). Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Threshold 13.5 Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would promote the use of alternative transportation systems (i.e., sidewalks, bikeways and bus service, transit). This would be accomplished by connecting pedestrians and bicyclists to various locations on the Project site; to the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station adjacent to and northeast of the Specific Plan area; to nearby employment-generating and retail uses; and to bus facilities. The proposed Project implements development allowed in the southern portion of PAI, north of 4th Street. As shown in the site plan graphics and conceptual landscape master plan included in the Project Description, consistent with Specific Plan requirements, the proposed Project includes pedestrian pathways throughout the development area that will serve pedestrian and bicyclists and will connect to The Resort Parkway, 6th Street and the office uses to the west. The Resort Parkway will provide bike lanes with bike-safety striping and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Therefore, walkway connections to this roadway will facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout the development area, and to external uses (including transit facilities). As with the Approved Project, the proposed Project will not preclude pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users from traveling along existing and planned non-vehicular facilities and will facilitate access to these alternative transportation facilities from on-site land uses. The proposed Project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, nor will it otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 524 524 26 Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR concluded that the anticipated increase in population and employment generated by the uses that would be allowed by the Approved Project would not be of a magnitude that would impact air traffic volumes. Further, the Approved Project would not include any uses that would change air traffic patterns. It was determined that no substantial safety risks would result from the Approved Project and no mitigation was required. Consistent with the conclusion of the Initial Study, the proposed residential uses, which are entirely within PAI of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan area and are consistent with the amount and type of residential development anticipated by the Approved Project, will not impact air traffic volumes or change air traffic patterns. Therefore, there will no substantial safety risks from changes in air traffic patterns. No new impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. 14.0 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Threshold 14.1 Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Threshold 14.2 Would the project 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? Threshold 14.3 Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Threshold 14.4 Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Threshold 14.5 Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Threshold 14.6 Would the project require or result in the construction of new electric, natural gas or communication facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed Project implements the Approved Project and involves the development of 867 apartment homes, 21,700 sf of commercial/retail uses, an approximately 16,000-sf clubhouse/leasing center, and associated recreation/open space areas in PAI south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway. This development is within the maximum development allowed for in Parcels S-14 through S-18 and Parcel S- 24. To date, no residential units are occupied in PAI; however, 511 units and the Club on 6th have been approved in PAI south of 6th Street and east of The Resort Parkway and are currently under construction. The proposed Project, in conjunction with the previously approved development, would not exceed the projected demand for water or dry utilities or increase the amount of wastewater or solid waste generation anticipated for the Approved Project and analyzed in the Final EIR. Further, the Project Applicant will coordinate with the Cucamonga Valley Water District to verify availability of an adequate and reliable water supply as required by RR 14-1, and as demonstrated in the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Approved Project. Because the amount and types of uses proposed would be consistent with the Approved Project, the utility infrastructure (on site and off site) needed to serve the 525 525 27 proposed development would be the same as with the Approved Project (e.g., water, sewer, electric, natural gas, and telecommunication lines). As with the Approved Project, utility infrastructure would be installed on site to serve the proposed uses and would connect to existing and planned utility infrastructure adjacent to the Project site in The Resort Parkway. The physical impact area for the utility infrastructure for the proposed Project is entirely within the physical impact area for the Approved Project that was evaluated in the Final EIR. The proposed Project incorporates water conservation requirements associated with landscaping (RR 14-3 and RR 14-4), and solid waste reduction requirements during construction and operation (RR 14-5 and RR 14-6). Consistent with conclusion of the Final EIR, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact related to utilities and service systems. No new impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Consistent with the conclusions of the Initial Study prepared for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Draft EIR, development within the City, including the Approved Project and the proposed Project, is required to comply with all applicable wastewater discharge requirements of the NPDES program, as enforced by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements and impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts will result from implementation of the proposed Project compared to what was analyzed in the Initial Study. 526 526 ATTACHMENT B 6th STREET ACOUSTICAL STUDY 527 527 JN 1076-002 Sent By E-mail October 14, 2019 Mr. Brian Jacobson, Vice President Multi-Family Development Lewis Management Corp. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, California 91786 RE: 6TH STREET ACOUSTICAL STUDY FOR HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT (DRC 2019-00674) Dear Mr. Jacobson: Per your request, James Kurtz, as a subconsultant to T&B Planning, has completed an acoustical study for Homecoming at The Resort (DRC 2019-00674) to comply with Mitigation Measure (MM) 10-7 of the Empire Lakes/Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Empire Lakes Final EIR) certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in May 2016 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083). MM 10-7 requires an acoustical study be prepared to demonstrate that an interior noise level of 45 A-weighted decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL) or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions) is met in all habitable rooms of the proposed buildings facing 6th Street, and that an exterior noise level of 70 dBA CNEL is met. As demonstrated in the attached acoustical study, the required interior noise level will be met with windows and doors in the habitable rooms along 6th Street having a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 28, and the required exterior noise level will be met with installation of 5-foot-high solid barriers at the porches and balconies facing 6th Street. If you have any questions, please contact Tina Andersen at (714) 505-6360 ext. 106. You can also email Ms. Andersen at tandersen@tbplanning.com, and Mr. Kurtz at kurtzairnoise@gmail.com. Sincerely, T&B PLANNING, INC. Tina Andersen Principal 528 528 1 6TH STREET ACOUSTICAL STUDY FOR HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT James Kurtz, Noise Specialist, has completed this acoustical study for Homecoming at The Resort (DRC 2019-00674) to comply with Mitigation Measure (MM) 10-7 of the Empire Lakes/Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Empire Lakes Final EIR) certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in May 2016 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083): MM 10-7 Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings adjacent to 6th Street, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit an acoustical study to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Official that demonstrates that the proposed architectural design would provide an interior noise level of 45 A-weighted decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL) or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions) in all habitable rooms of the proposed buildings facing 6th Street. The Property Owner/Developer shall also submit plans and specifications showing that: •All residential units shall be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code for occupancy with windows closed. •All exterior use areas shall be located behind the buildings or shielded by a sound wall or other barrier to provide exterior noise levels not exceeding 70 dBA CNEL. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC is proposing the construction and operation of 867 for rent apartment homes; an approximately 16,000 square foot (sf) clubhouse/leasing center; and approximately 21,700 sf of commercial space in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan area. The project site encompasses 39.68 gross acres and is bound by 6th Street to the north, Empire Lakes Specific Plan Parcel S-19 to the south, The Resort Parkway to the east, and Cleveland Avenue (a private drive aisle) to the west (refer to Exhibit 1). Vehicular access to the proposed development would be provided from two access points on 6th Street, and three access points along The Resort Parkway including the roundabout. As shown on the detailed site plan provided in Exhibit 2, there are residential units planned along 6th Street, which triggers the need to complete this acoustical study. The four buildings adjacent to 6th Street will be three-story stacked flats, including one 10-plex building and three 21-plex buildings. Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 show the building elevations for the 21-plex “Contemporary” design, 21-plex “Industrial” design, and the 10-plex “Contemporary” design, respectively. Exhibit 6 shows the first, second, and third floor plans for the 21-plex buildings, and Exhibit 7 shows the first, second, and third floor plans for the 10-plex buildings. Exhibit 8 shows the unit plans for the buildings. On the first (ground) floor, each building will have exterior porches facing 6th Street (four units in the 21-plex buildings and one unit in the 10-plex building). Based on current design, the porches on the 21-plex and 10-plex Contemporary buildings and the 21-plex Industrial building will have approximately 3-foot high block walls with no gate or other opening. On each of the second and third floors, each building will have balconies with 42-inch high metal railings facing 6th Street. 529 529 2 In all buildings, windows facing 6th Street or the balconies and porches will have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 28 or 29, depending on the type of window. Doors facing 6th Street or the balconies and porches will have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 30. Residential units will be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation for occupancy with windows closed, as required by the California Building Code. NOISE CALCULATION METHOD The noise levels adjacent to roadways in the project traffic study area were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD 77 108). The FHWA model determines a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for traffic flows, speed, truck mix, varying distances from the roadway, length of exposed roadway, and noise shielding. The calculations do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. NOISE SOURCE The following traffic data were used to calculate future noise levels at the planned residences: • The average daily traffic volume (ADT) on 6th Street is projected to be 24,915 vehicles in 2036, as stated in Section 4.10 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR. • The posted speed limit on 6th Street is 45 miles per hour. • The future traffic mix is estimated at 96 percent automobiles, 1 percent medium trucks, and 3percent heavy trucks. It is noted that these data are conservative because: 3 percent heavy trucks would be a daytime volume of approximately 42 truck passes per hour (approximately one heavy truck every 90 seconds); and, with the increasing number of electric vehicles in California, the average vehicle noise in 2036 will be less than the noise data in the traffic noise calculation model. INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The facades of the planned residential buildings would be approximately 75 feet from the centerline of 6th Street at the closest point (refer to Exhibit 2). Using the traffic data described above, the traffic noise model results in a noise level of 71 dBA CNEL at the building facades. The windows and doors in the habitable rooms facing 6th Street would have a STC rating of at least 28, as described above, implying a 28 dBA noise reduction capability. Thus, the greatest interior future noise levels are calculated to be 43 dBA CNEL, which complies with the requirement of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR MM 10-7 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code (i.e., the interior noise level will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL). EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS As stated above, the calculated noise levels at the building facades, which is also the front of the porches and balconies, is 71 dBA CNEL. The balconies will have solid walls on the sides that extend to the front of the porches and balconies. These side walls will block some traffic noise to areas of the balconies back from the front. However, with the original design as presented in the building elevations, the front areas of the porches and balconies would have noise levels exceeding 70 dBA CNEL. Therefore, noise attenuation in the form of solid barriers 5 feet high at the porches and balconies facing 6th Street is required. By using materials that will reduce transmission of noise through the barrier by at least 15 dBA, the barriers will reduce total traffic noise to a receptor on the porch or balcony by at least 5 dBA; the exterior noise level will be less than 70 dBA CNEL and will comply with the 530 530 3 requirement of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR MM 10-7. Following is a description of the specifications for the barriers: • First Floor Porches. The walls will be 5 feet high, made of solid material. The planned 3-foot high walls for the 21-plex and 10-plex Contemporary buildings and the 21-plex Industrial buildings may be extended to 5 feet using concrete block or, if desired, a transparent material that will have a transmission loss of at least 15 dBA, per the examples below. Examples of materials and transmission loss: 1/8-inch thick safety glass-22 dBA; ¼-inch thick plexiglass-22 dBA; 1/16-inch aluminum-23 dBA; 24-gage steel-18 dBA; ½-inch fir-18 dBA; and ½-inch plywood-20 dBA. If the selected design includes openable panels, for example, a 3- foot high plywood barrier with 2-foot high plexiglass panels, and the panels are hinged to allow breezes, the hinged panels will be designed to minimize gaps between adjacent sections when in the closed position. • Second and Third Floor Balconies. The barriers will be five feet high and made of solid materials. The materials used for the barriers will have a transmission loss of at least 15 dBA. Examples of materials and transmission loss include ½-inch fir-18 dBA; ½-inch plywood-20 dBA; 1/8-inch safety glass-22 dBA; 1/16- inch aluminum-23 dBA; 24-gage steel-18 dBA; and ¼-inch plexiglass-22 dBA. If the selected design includes openable panels, for example, a 3-foot high plywood barrier with 2-foot high plexiglass panels, and the panels are hinged to allow breezes, the hinged panels will be designed to minimize gaps between adjacent sections when in the closed position. In summary, the planned multi-family residential units along 6th Street will be in compliance with the established interior and exterior noise standards as identified in MM 10-7 from the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR. 531 531 532 532 533533 Front Elevation9'-1"9'-1"•• • ••• ••••••••9'-1"CONTEMPORARY Material Legend 1. Stucco 2. Metal Trim 3.Fi�er Cement Siding 4. Metal Railing 5. Masonry Veneer 6. Decorative Awning Contemporary Style Elements A.Flat roo� with simple unadorned parapet walls or shed roo�s. B. Stucco wall materials in contrasting traditional or contemporary accent colors. C.Enhanced accents o� metal, �rick and / or siding. D.Contrasting �orm wall colors and / or material de�ining colors. E. Minimal or exaggerated window trim in contrasting traditional or contemporary colors. F.Vertically proportioned, stacked or purposely un�alanced window placement. P2 P4 P4 P2 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com DRC SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 A-2ELEVATIONS 21 PLEX STACKED FLATS Exhibit 3 534534 Front ElevationINDUSTRIAL Material Legend 1. Stucco 2. Metal Trim 3. Metal Siding 4. Metal Railing 5. Masonry Veneer 6. Metal Awning Industrial Style Elements A.Flat roo� with simple unadorned or detailed parapet walls. B.Pro�ections or wall planes articulate �acade with simple, unadorned �orms. C.Contrasting �orm and / or material de�ining colors consisting o� stucco, metal, or �i�er cement siding. D.Minimal window trims with contrasting neutral tones. E.Bold, contemporary accent colors. F.Enhanced �rick wall veneer. G.Cantilevered deck pro�ections. H.Enhanced hori�ontal �anding �etween �loors. I.Enhanced metal awnings or overhangs. �.Enhanced metal �alcony railings.9'-1"9'-1"•• • ••• ••••••••9'-1"P2 P4 P4 P2 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com DRC SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 A-5ELEVATIONS 21 PLEX STACKED FLATS Exhibit 4 535535 Front Elevation 9'-1"9'-1"•• • ••• • •••••••••9'-1"CONTEMPORARY Rear ElevationRight Elevation Le�t Elevation Roo� Scale� 3/32" � 1'-0" NOTE� 1.Re�er to cut sheet �or speci�ic light �ixture design. 2. All AC condensers to �e screened �rom view �ehind parapet walls. Proposed/Conceptual location o� �uilding num�ers. Proposed/Conceptual location o� �uilding num�ers. Proposed/Conceptual location o� �uilding num�ers. Proposed/Conceptual location o� �uilding num�ers. Proposed/Conceptual location o� �uilding num�ers. Proposed/Conceptual location o� �uilding num�ers. Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com DRC SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 0 4 8 12 A-12BUILDING ELEVATIONS 10 PLEX STACKED FLATS Scale� 3/16" � 1'-0" Exhibit 5 536536 First FloorSecond FloorThird Floor 63'-5"162'-3"162'-3"63'-5"162'-3"63'-5" P2 P4 P4 P2P2 P4 P3 P3 P4 P2 P1 P2 P3 P4 P2 P3 P4 P1 9074 S�. FT. GROSS 9074 S�. FT. GROSS 8792 S�. FT. GROSS P2 P2 P2 0 4 8 16 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com DRC SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 A-8BUILDING PLANS 21 PLEX STACKED FLATS Scale� 1/8" � 1'-0" Exhibit 6 537537 84'-0"64'-3"86'-4"66'-11"86'-4"66'-11" First FloorSecond FloorThird Floor P2P2P2 P2P2 P3P3 P5P5 P2 5196 S�. FT. GROSS 5195 S�. FT. GROSS 4984 S�. FT. GROSS 0 4 8 16 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com DRC SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 A-13BUILDING PLANS 10 PLEX STACKED FLATS Scale� 1/8" � 1'-0" Exhibit 7 538538 34'-8"25'-0"36'-2" M. Bedroom13'-9"x13'-0" Coat M. Bath Great Room14'-7"x13'-0" Lau.W.I.C. Kitchen Great Room12'-6"x18'-7" FoyerM. Bath W.I.C. M. Bedroom11'-4"x12'-2" Bedroom 211'-2"x12'-2" W.I.C. M. BathW.I.C. M. Bedroom11'-11"x12'-2" Bedroom 210'-8"x10'-10" Lau. Great Room20'-6"x13'-1" M. Bedroom11'-5"x12'-3" Unit P2 1 Bed / 1 Bath 829 S�. FT. Gross 73 S�. FT. Private Open Space Great Room12'-1"x21'-2" Unit P1 1 Bed / 1 Bath 765 S�. FT. Gross 60 S�. FT. Private Open Space M. Bedroom11'-2"x13'-4" Unit P3 2 Bed / 2 Bath 1035 S�. FT. Gross 54 S�. FT. Private Open Space Unit P4 2 Bed / 2 Bath 1098 S�. FT. Gross 50 S�. FT. Private Open Space Unit P5 3 Bed / 2 Bath 1528 S�. FT. Gross 79 S�. FT. Private Open Space Kitchen M. Bath Balcony12'-0"x6'-6"73 S�. FT. Balcony8'-6"x7'-6"60 S�. FT. Stor. Balcony8'-2"x6'-1"50 S�. FT. Stor. Balcony8'-9"x6'-2"54 S�. FT. Balcony6'-7"x12'-1"79 S�. FT. W.I.C. Lau. Bath 2 Kitchen Pan. Lin. Pan.Pan. Pan. Lin.Lin. WH Coat Lin. WH WH WH Stor. 3'-11 1/2"8'-0"4'-0 1/2"4'-4"6'-0"3'-11"2'-0"7'-0"6'-0"3'-1"6'-8 1/2"2'-0"6'-6"2'-0"7'-9 1/2"3'-7 1/2"7'-2 1/2"3'-8"1'-10 1/2"6'-0"1'-8"3'-1"6'-0"3'-0 1/2" 3'-9"7'-11 3/4"7'-0 1/4"8'-0"3'-4 1/2"4'-4"6'-0"3'-0 1/2"6'-0"4'-6 1/2"25'-6" 48'-4"4'-3"2'-0"11'-11 1/2"2'-0"5'-7"2'-0"2'-10 1/2"1'-0"31'-8"30'-1 1/2"25'-7"Kitchen Pan. M. Bath W.I.C. Lau. Stor. Lin. WH 3'-9"8'-0"3'-5 1/2"6'-0"3'-0"6'-0"2'-11 1/2"7'-2"2'-0"16'-5"33'-2" Coat Kitchen M. Bath Lau.6'-8"Lin. 25'-6" 1'-2"2'-1"2'-0"1'-2"8'-5 1/2"3'-0"7'-7 1/2"3'-0"1'-11 1/2"28'-1"33'-10"9 1/2"64'-3"Stor. Bedroom 310'-5"x11'-0" Bedroom 212'-9"x11'-11" W.I.C. Bath 23'-11 1/2"7'-11 1/2"3'-11 1/2"2'-8 1/2"6'-0"9'-1"1'-9 1/2"2'-0"6'-4"2'-0"7'-4 3/4"2'-0"2'-5 3/4"23'-7 1/2"6'-4 1/2"34'-3"30'-11 1/2"5'-2 1/2" 0 2 4 8 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com DRC SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 14, 2019RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 HOMECOMING AT THE RESORTLCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 A-14UNIT PLANS 3 STORY STACKED FLATS Scale� 1/4" � 1'-0" Exhibit 8 539539 ATTACHMENT C TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM AND PARKING ASSESSMENT 540 540 MEMORANDUM Date: October 9, 2019 To: Brian Jacobson, Lewis Management Corporation From: Jason D. Pack, P.E. Subject: Lewis Management Corporation Mixed Use 867 Unit Development Traffic Memo – Empire Lakes Fehr & Peers completed the Final Transportation Impact Analysis for Empire Lakes in October of 2015 (herein referred to as the TIA). The TIA provided the full transportation impact assessment of the project as a whole and identified measures needed to mitigate project impacts (including timing of the proposed mitigation measures). The TIA represented the technical basis for the traffic impact section of the EIR prepared for the project. Currently, Lewis Management Corporation is working on completing submittals to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the following land uses proposed south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway. •867 apartment units •10,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail/office space in a two-story building on the corner of 6th Street and The Resort Parkway (assumed to be half retail and half office) •5,000 sq. ft. of retail in the “endcap” building space adjacent to the roundabout on The Resort Parkway In addition, there is approximately 6,700 sq. ft. of space in the live-work units on the project site; however, for this assessment we are treating that space as residential units as live-work traditionally internalize as many trips as they generate and thus provides a worst case scenario for this consistency assessment. 541 541 Mr. Brian Jacobson October 9, 2019 Page 2 of 7 The purpose of this memorandum is to document the assumptions from the TIA associated with the project and note the current proposed project’s consistency with those TIA assumptions. TIA to Proposed Project Comparison Table 1 compares key attributes associated with the proposed development project and the TIA assumptions that could potentially affect transportation. The Specific Plan land use assumptions are presented on Figure 1. The detailed site plan is presented on Figure 2. Table 1: Lewis Management Corporation Apartments Project Attributes Attribute TIA Assumption Current Proposal Consistency Location South of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway Consistent Access From The Resort Parkway and from 6th Street Generally Consistent – The TIA assumed access via intersections 201 (now referred to as The Loop Road), 202 (where the roundabout intersection is located), and 203 as shown on the attached Figure 1. However, the TIA did not assume any access directly from 6th Street (the current plan shows two access points from 6th Street). In general, the access from 6th Street will reduce traffic on The Resort Parkway and through the 6th Street/The Resort Parkway intersection which would provide for better accessibility and better operations. Additionally, this access should not change traffic volumes on 6th Street that would affect the findings or analysis in the traffic study for 6th Street. Size 1,450 Units on the South Site (e.g. between 4th Street and 6th Street) plus 75,000 sq. ft. of retail Consistent - Van Daele proposed 296 units, The New Home Company proposed 135 units, and TRI Point proposed 80 units; bringing the total number of proposed units (prior to this project) to 511. The 867 units proposed by Lewis Operating Corporation would bring the total unit count to 1,378; leaving 72 units left to be developed on the south side of 6th Street. Since this is the last planned residential site proposed south of 6th 542 542 Mr. Brian Jacobson October 9, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Street, it is likely that the remaining 72 units will not be developed. Additionally, the project includes 10,000 sq. ft. of retail and 5,000 sq. ft. of office space (assumed). The total 15,000 sq. ft. of office/retail space is less than the 75,000 sq. ft. of retail space assumed in the traffic study (which may be developed at the 4th Street/ The Resort Parkway intersection mixed use area). Density TIA assumed area S-14, S-15, S-16, S-17, and S-18; comprising 37.8 acres in total. Density for S- 14 was assumed at 18-35 dwelling units per acre; while S- 15 through S-18 assumed 16-28 dwelling units per acre. Consistent – The Lewis Operating Corporation project density is 22 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the assumptions noted for the area. Access Design Assumed to be consistent with the Specific Plan guidelines and City Standards Consistent To further assess the project’s consistency with the traffic study, it is prudent to estimate trip generation associated with the project and utilize it as a potential tracking tool to monitor development within the entire Empire Lakes project. Trip Generation Comparison Fehr & Peers utilized the same mixed-use trip generation methodology to estimate project trips as that used in the TIA given the introduction of some office/retail as part of this development and the overall project’s proximity to attractors in the area (such as Metrolink, high employment at the adjacent Inland Empire Heath Plan (IEHP) facility, and nearby restaurant/retail in Piemonte). The results are summarized in Table 2. The trip generation methodology, referred to as mixed- use development (MXD) trip generation, is attached to this memorandum. As shown in Table 2, the proposed developments to date are below the assumed trip generation potential noted in the traffic study. In fact, future south side development in The Resort could generate an additional 64 AM peak hour trips, 123 PM peak hour trips, and 2,667 daily trips. 543 543 Mr. Brian Jacobson October 9, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Therefore, the project is consistent with the assumptions from the EIR and no additional assessment is required. We hope this information is useful. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 714-941-8773. 544 544 Table 2: Lewis Operating Corporation Apartments, TRI Pointe Communities, The New Home Company, and Van Daele Project Trip Generation Summary Time Period Lewis Operating Corporation Apartments (estimated from MXD trip generation methodology) Total Development Currently Proposed Trip Generation (estimated from MXD trip generation methodology) TIA Assumption Remaining Trips (TIA Assumption) – (Van Daele + The New Home Company + TRI Pointe Communities + Lewis Operating Corporation) AM Peak Hour 391 618 South Side: AM – 682 Total: AM – 1,676 South Side: AM – 64 (9% remaining) Total: AM – 1,058 (63% remaining) PM Peak Hour 501 774 South Side: PM – 897 Trips Total: PM – 2,097 Trips South Side: PM – 123 Trips (14% remaining) Total: PM – 1,323 Trips (63% remaining) Daily 5,547 8,569 South Side: Daily – 11,236 Total: Daily – 25,183 South Side: Daily – 2,667 (24% remaining) Total: Daily – 16,614 (66% remaining) 545545 Figure 7.6: Conceptual Development Plan by PlacetypeConceptual Development Plan by Placetype SPB E L MetrolinkRancho CucamongaStation 6th Street 7th Street 7th Street South North 4th Street Pocket Park Metrolink San Bernardino Line Pocket Park Urban PlazaTheVine The VineMilliken AveS ECONDARY E NTRY S ECONDARY E NTRY S ECONDARY E NTRY Placetype L egend Village Neighborhood (VN) Recreation (REC) MU Overlay Core Living (CL) Urban Neighborhood (UN) Mixed Use (MU) Transit (T) Note: Figure not to scale. Figure 1 Internal Circulation Analyzed Intersections 207 205 206 204 203 202 201 546 546 Lewis Apartments Conceptual Site Plan Figure 2 80 Spaces Total (34 spaces dedicated to Residential)UPUPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP THE RESORT PARKWAYCLEVELAND AVENUEFUTURE COMMERCIAL 10,000 SF LEASING AMENITY AREA 0 60 12030 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 DRC SUBMITTAL SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 LCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 21 Plex Stacked Flats Garage Buildings Paired Homes Linear Townhomes 6 Plex Stacked Flats Live-Work-Shop Recreation-Leasing 10 Plex Stacked Flats Product Color Legend 0 300 600150 Key Map / Sheet Legend MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE S-2SITE PLAN SITE PLAN OVERALL Adjusted to 24' Parallel Stalls Scale: 1" = 60'-0" 547 547 Attachment A - MXD Trip Generation Information Project Only Information 548 548 549 549 South Side Aggregate Information 550 550 551 551 MEMORANDUM Date: October 9, 2019 To: Brian Jacobson, Lewis Management Corporation From: Jason D. Pack, P.E. Subject: Lewis Management Corporation Mixed Use 867 Unit Development Parking Assessment – Empire Lakes The purpose of this memorandum is to document parking information, consistent with the approved Specific Plan, for the above referenced project. Specifically, each project will be required to document their proposed private off-street parking, private on-street parking, and public on- street parking supply and note how it compares to the approved Specific Plan requirements. Additionally, if each project utilizes public on-street parking to satisfy their parking requirements, then this document will need to clearly identify which proposed development project will utilize the public on-street parking (e.g. no two project developments can utilize the same public on-street parking supply to satisfy their requirements). This specific memorandum is to address parking related to the Lewis Management Corporation Mixed Use project (located south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway). Background Information The Empire Lakes Specific Plan (Section 7.3.5) identifies the approach and requirements related to parking for the entire Specific Plan. Table 7.6 (Section B), shown below, identifies the parking requirements based on the land use designations. 552 552 Mr. Brian Jacobson October 9, 2019 Page 2 of 5 In addition to the parking standards required above, the section provides multiple options related to alternative approaches to parking, should the Empire Lakes development choose to use any of these concepts. These key components are noted below: Shared Parking – Shared parking exists when different uses that peak at different times of the day share their facilities. For example, residential uses typically experience their peak parking demand after 10:00 at night. Offices, on the other hand, are typically vacant at that time and tend to peak around 10:00 in the morning. As such, sharing parking facilities between those two uses allows for a reduced supply of parking (relative to their parking requirements if they were a stand-alone use). Similar to un-coupled parking, a shared parking assessment would be required to ensure that the correct number of spaces would be provided that reflect the temporal (e.g time of day) parking demand of the shared uses. 553 553 Mr. Brian Jacobson October 9, 2019 Page 3 of 5 For the Phase I development of the Specific Plan area (south of 6th Street), no shared parking is currently proposed. On-Street Parking – The Specific Plan notes how excessive parking affects the livability of a community and neighborhoods. As such, all on-street parking can be utilized to satisfy the parking requirements for each project. There are two key components of on-street parking for the project site: • Private on-street parking - this includes parking along streets that are internal to each project area and will be utilized by that project to meet their parking requirements. • Public on-street parking - this includes parking that is along The Resort Parkway which will need to be “assigned” to each development project to ensure that multiple project proposals are not “claiming” parking credit for the same public on-street parking supply. For Phase I of the Specific Plan, several guest builders and the Lewis Management Corporation Mixed Use site will be utilizing both private on-street parking (in addition to their garaged parking) and public on-street parking toward their parking supply requirements. As such, the public on- street parking along the site frontage will need to be “assigned” to that land use. Parking Tracking Information It is necessary to count and assign private on-street and public on-street parking to proposed development area. The Lewis Management Corporation and guest builders will use on-street parking to count toward their parking supply requirements. Counting and assigning on-street parking will ensure that no two planning areas use the same parking supply toward their parking requirements. Parking Study Requirements The Specific Plan also notes that parking studies may be required for the following situations: • Mixed-use development • Residential development greater than 30 units/acre • If parking requirements identified in Table 7.6 are proposed to be reduced as part of the development • If a progressive parking management program, that could include shared parking or un- coupled parking, is proposed 554 554 Mr. Brian Jacobson October 9, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Un-Coupled Parking In addition to the innovative parking approaches noted above, the Specific Plan also discusses un- coupled parking. Although not defined in the Specific Plan, discussions with City staff have indicated that the un-coupled parking component of the Specific Plan relates to use of parking spaces (on- street and off-street) in other areas of the project site; including use of The Resort Parkway. If development is to use un-coupled parking, then a study/memorandum is required to document the credit for the un-coupled parking (e.g. two different planning areas cannot “claim” the same parking supply). The currently proposed Lewis Management Corporation 867-units Mixed Use portion of the Specific Plan (south of 6th Street and west of The Resort Parkway) will be utilizing public on- street parking on The Resort Parkway to satisfy their parking requirements. As such, the purpose of this memorandum is to allocate these public on-street parking spaces to the currently proposed 867- unit mixed-use project and for each of the previously approved Projects in The Resort. Figure 1, attached to this memorandum, provides our recommendation on parking allocation by development area. Lewis Management Corporation Mixed Use Development Proposed Parking Figure 2 presents the proposed parking for the currently proposed Lewis Management Corporation 867-untis Mixed Use project. As shown on the figure, the project proposes to utilize the following parking spaces to exceed their parking requirements: •1,056 Garage Spaces •149 Driveway Spaces •538 On-Site On-Street Spaces •47 Parallel Spaces on The Resort Parkway •80 Spaces in the 10,000 sq. ft. Commercial Parking Lot (note, these will be shared spacesbetween the commercial and the apartments) The resulting available parking is 1,870 spaces allocated to the Lewis Management Corporation 867-unit Mixed Use Development. This exceeds the required number of parking spaces for the project, which is estimated to be 1,864 parking spaces. A breakdown of required spaces is below for reference. Please note that, since there are a mix of uses on the site, there is the potential for additional reductions for parking requirements as the retail/office uses on the site will produce very little demand when residential demand peaks at the site (which typically occurs around 10:00 555 555 Mr. Brian Jacobson October 9, 2019 Page 5 of 5 at night). This shared use parking reduction should reduce the overall parking requirements at the site; however, the project is not proposing a reduction from City standards at this time. •438 one-bedroom units x 1.5 spaces/unit = 657 required spaces •374 two-bedroom units at 2.0 spaces/unit = 748 required spaces •55 three-bedroom units at 2.0 spaces/unit = 110 required spaces •867 total units at 0.33 guest spaces/unit = 289 required spaces •15,060 sq. ft. of retail at 4.0 spaces/KSF = 60 required spaces Summary and Recommendations At the time of this memorandum, most of the Phase I development for the project has been developed (for all development areas except the mixed-use area adjacent to 4th Street). Parking for proposed Phase I developments in this area are utilizing private on-street parking within their parcels and public on-street parking on The Resort Parkway. As noted above, we do recommend that the graphic attached to this memorandum be used and updated in the future (if needed) to continue tracking un-coupled parking moving forward to ensure that the parking accounting is correct for the project moving forward. We hope this information is useful. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 949-308-6312. 556 556 Parking Allocation on the Resort Parkwayand Internal Streets Figure 1 Lewis Apartments Mixed-Use Development Van Daele Development Tri Point Communities Development The New Home Company 557 557 Lewis Apartments Conceptual Site Plan Figure 2 80 Spaces Total (34 spaces dedicated to Residential)UPUPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP THE RESORT PARKWAYCLEVELAND AVENUEFUTURE COMMERCIAL 10,000 SF LEASING AMENITY AREA 0 60 12030 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com HOMECOMING AT THE RESORT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 180716 DRC SUBMITTAL SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 LCD Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 21 Plex Stacked Flats Garage Buildings Paired Homes Linear Townhomes 6 Plex Stacked Flats Live-Work-Shop Recreation-Leasing 10 Plex Stacked Flats Product Color Legend 0 300 600150 Key Map / Sheet Legend MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE MATCH LINE S-2SITE PLAN SITE PLAN OVERALL Adjusted to 24' Parallel Stalls Scale: 1" = 60'-0" 558 558 RESOLUTION NO.20-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A VACANT 39.68-ACRE PARCEL INTO EIGHT (8) NUMBERED LOTS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 867 FOR- RENT APARTMENTS DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING AREA S-14 THROUGH S-18 AND IN S- 24 IN THE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD (VN) DISTRICT AND CORE LIVING (CL) DISTRICT OF THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNING AREA 1, LOCATED NORTH OF 4TH STREET, SOUTH OF 6TH STREET, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND EAST OF UTICA/CLEVELAND AVENUES. THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THE PROJECT SITE IS SOUTH OF 6TH STREET AND WEST OF THE RESORT PARKWAY AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, 0210-102-10. A. Recitals. 1. Empire Lakes Holding Company LLC., filed an application for the issuance of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 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 22nd day of January 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 22, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a project site located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street, west of The Resort Parkway; and b. The project site has an area of 39.68 acres of land which is bound by The Resort Parkway to the east and 6th Street to the North and has a street frontage of approximately 1,200 feet along 6th street and approximately 2,300 feet along The Resort Parkway; and 559 559 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-06 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 – HOMECOMING 2.0 AT THE RESORT JANUARY 22, 2020 Page 2 c. The project site is currently undeveloped and has been “mass” graded to prepare for development; and d. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site and the properties surrounding the subject property is Mixed Use; and e. The properties to the north and partially south, are also within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and are vacant. The property to the east is within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and is developed with three separate residential condominium projects; and f. The application is for the subdivision of the 39.68-acre project site into eight (8) numbered lots for condominium purposes; and g. The related Design Review application, DRC2019-00674, proposes the construction of 867 for-rent apartments and 5,000 square feet of live/work commercial space; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The design and layout of the subject Tentative Tract Map will be consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of a residential project which will be consistent with the Mixed-Use zoning of the project site. b. The site is physically suitable for the subdivision which will create eight (8) numbered lots for condominium purposes. The project site is part of a larger Mixed-Use development that is designed to accommodate the level of traffic proposed by the proposed project and the overall development. c. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. An Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum dated October 14, 2019 was prepared by T & B Planning that demonstrates that the subject project is within the scope of the approved overall project and analysis included in the Final EIR. d. The tentative tract map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed project is for the development of 867 for-rent apartments and 5,000 square feet of live/work commercial space. An Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum dated October 14, 2019 was prepared by T & B Planning that demonstrates that the subject project is within the scope of the approved overall project and analysis included in the Final EIR. e. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Access to the property will be from existing public streets surrounding the project site and access to the individual future development will be from private streets to be constructed on the subject property. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum, together with all written and 560 560 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-06 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 – HOMECOMING 2.0 AT THE RESORT JANUARY 22, 2020 Page 3 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 based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 (SCH No. 2015041083) in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR 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. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum dated October 14, 2019 was prepared by T & B Planning. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and analysis included in the Final EIR identified above and no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Design Review DRC2019-00674. 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 EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, nor 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. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption. c. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City’s consideration of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118. 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 Standard Conditions incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 561 561 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-06 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20118 – HOMECOMING 2.0 AT THE RESORT JANUARY 22, 2020 Page 4 BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, 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 22nd day of January 2020, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 562 562 RESOLUTION NO.20-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 867 FOR RENT APARTMENTS AND 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIVE/WORK COMMERCIAL ON 39.68-ACRE PROPERTY WITHIN PLANNING AREAS S-14 THROUGH S-18 AND IN S-24 IN THE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD (VN) DISTRICT AND CORE LIVING (CL) DISTRICT OF THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNING AREA 1, LOCATED NORTH OF 4TH STREET, SOUTH OF 6TH STREET, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND EAST OF UTICA/CLEVELAND AVENUES. THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THE PROJECT SITE IS SOUTH OF 6TH STREET AND WEST OF THE RESORT PARKWAY AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0210-102-08, 0210-102-09, 0210-102-10. A. Recitals. 1. Empire Lakes Holding Company LLC, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00674 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of January 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing January 22, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a project site located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street, west of The Resort Parkway; and b. The project site has an area of 39.68 acres of land which is bound by The Resort Parkway to the east and 6th Street to the North and has a street frontage of approximately 1,200 feet along 6th street and approximately 2,300 feet along The Resort Parkway; and c. The project site is currently undeveloped and has been “mass” graded to prepare for development; and 563 563 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-05 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – HOMECOMING 2.0 AT THE RESORT JANUARY 22, 2020 Page 2 d. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site and the properties surrounding the subject property is Mixed Use; and e. The properties to the north and partially south, are also within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and are vacant. The property to the east is within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and is developed with three separate residential condominium projects; and f. The application is for the site plan and architectural review of 867 for-rent apartments and 5,000 square feet of live/work commercial space; and g. The applicant has chosen a combination of Contemporary, Spanish, Industrial, European Heritage, and Main Street architectural styles. Each proposed architectural style is true to its respective design vernacular, utilizing architecturally appropriate materials, colors, and finishes; and h. The required density within Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype is 16 to 28 dwelling units per acre, and 18-35 dwelling units per acre in the Core Living (CL) Placetype. The project as proposed has a density of 22 dwelling units/acre, in compliance with the Master Plan; and i. The project provides 1,824 parking spaces for residents, guests, and commercial uses, which meets the minimum requirement of described in Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code; and j. Individual projects within the Specific Plan area are required to provide 150 square feet of a combination of private and common open space per dwelling unit. The project provides 77,381 square feet of private open space and 309,000 square-feet of common open space for a total of 386,381 square feet. This breaks down to 446 square-feet per unit, far exceeding the requirements of the Specific Plan; and k. All streets within the interior of the project will be private, i.e. maintained by a homeowner’s association. However, these streets will be open to the public (non-residents of the project). Primary vehicular access into the project will be private street connections to The Resort Parkway; and l. The project includes a tentative tract map to subdivide the 39.68-acre project site into eight (8) numbered lots for condominium purposes; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the overall Master Plan area is Mixed Use. The overall Master Plan area will provide a mix of land uses, though does not require each parcel within the Master Plan area to have a mix of land uses. The proposed project is for the development of 867 for-rent apartments and 5,000 square feet of live/work commercial space, which is is part of a larger Mixed-Use development. 564 564 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-05 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – HOMECOMING 2.0 AT THE RESORT JANUARY 22, 2020 Page 3 b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the surrounding area. The land use that would be associated with this project is consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and all properties surrounding the subject property is Mixed Use (MU), Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, which permits the construction of residential units. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and Placetype S-14 through S-18, and S-24, in which it is located. c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is currently vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and all the surrounding properties is Mixed Use, Empire Lakes Specific Plan and is in Planning Area 1, which allows for the development of different types of residential units. Furthermore, an Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum dated October 14, 2019 was prepared by T & B Planning, which demonstrates that the subject project is within the scope of the approved overall project and analysis included in the Final EIR. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum, 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 based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 (SCH No. 2015041083) in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR 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. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, Environmental Technical Analysis Memorandum dated October 14, 2019 was prepared by T & B Planning. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and analysis included in the Final EIR identified above and no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of Tentative 565 565 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-05 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00674 – HOMECOMING 2.0 AT THE RESORT JANUARY 22, 2020 Page 4 Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Design Review DRC2019-00674. 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 EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, nor 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. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption. 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 Development Review DRC2019-00674. 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 in the attached Standard Conditions incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, 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 22nd day of January 2020, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 566 566 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 1. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the nearby buildings 2. Plans submitted during building plan check shall include cut sheets for all proposed lighting on site, including street lamps, and wall-mounted lights. All wall-mounted lights shall be architecturally compatible to the architectural type for each unit it is mounted on. 3. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall provide physical samples of colors and materials for each building type for review and approval by the Planning Department. 4. A Planning final inspection shall be obtained prior to final sign-off of any building permits or occupancy of any structures. 5. Standard Conditions of Approval 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 or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 8. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 1/15/2020 567 567 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 9. 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. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Services Department and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 12. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 13. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations, and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Any changes to the approved plan shall require review from the Planning Director prior to construction and/or installation, and may require additional review and approval from the Design Review Committee or Planning Commission. 14. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 15. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 568 568 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 18. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 19. 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.) 20. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 21. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 22. For all residential development, provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for Planning Director and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 23. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 24. 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. 25. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 569 569 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 26. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 27. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 28. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 29. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 30. Tentative tract map 20118 shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, or unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 31. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning Director for separate review and approval prior installation of any signs. 32. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 33. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the 'third place spaces' near the table top crossings on The Resort Parkway. 1. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.3. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 570 570 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.4. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 5. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. 6. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 7. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 8. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 9. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 10. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans.” If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. 11. “Developer shall install a dark fiber conduit package fronting the development. Two 4” Schedule 40 PVC conduits, along with three 1 ¼” innerducts in one of the 4” conduits, per City Standard 145. The size, placement, and location of the conduit shall be shown on the Street Improvement Plans and subject to Engineering Services Department review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits or final map approval, whichever comes first.” 12. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 571 571 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees 13. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 14. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 572 572 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 16. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 17. Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. 18. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.19. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 20. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 21. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC/CRC NFPA 13, 13R and the Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and buildings must be in accordance to the State of California and ADA regulations. All ground floor units shall be adaptable and on an accessible route, and accessible parking and covered parking shall be provided as per the current edition of the California Building Code. The swimming pool is required to have San Bernardino County Health Department approval prior to issuance of the building permit for the swimming pool. The swimming pool shall meet all a disabled access requirements in accordance to the State of California and ADA regulations. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 573 573 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 4. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 5. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 7. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading plan for multi-family projects, the private streets and drive aisles within multi-family developments shall include street plans as part of the Grading and Drainage Plan set. The private street plan view shall show typical street sections. The private street profile view shall show the private street/drive aisle centerline. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 11. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 574 574 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official. 12. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 13. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 14. 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. 15. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 16. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 17. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 575 575 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 19. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 20. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 21. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R’s or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R’s and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 22. 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. 23. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 24. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. 25. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 26. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 27. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 576 576 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 28. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 29. The Site and Drainage Plan in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall show the locations of all roof downspout drains. if required for storm water quality purposes, the downspouts shall include filters. 30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a final project specific water quality management plan for review and approval, and shall have said document recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office. 31. The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document. 32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan. 33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”. 34. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 577 577 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”. 35. The subject project, shall accept all existing off-site storm water drainage flows and safely convey those flows through or around the project site. If existing off-site storm water drainage flows mix with any on-site storm water drainage flows, then the off-site storm water drainage flows shall be treated with the on-site storm water drainage flows for storm water quality purposes, prior to discharging the storm water drainage flows from the project site. 36. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 37. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document. 38. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 578 578 Project #: DRC2019-00674 DRC2019-00700, SUBTT00009 Project Name: EDR - Homecoming at The Resort - Design Review Location: 11015 6TH ST - 021010210-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. 39. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 13Printed: 1/15/2020 579 579 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00007 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to amend standards for Accessory Dwelling Units in compliance with state law. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15282(h). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00007, amending the requirements and standards for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU’s), consistent with State law. BACKGROUND: Rancho Cucamonga has permitted second dwelling units since the State first adopted regulations in 1982. Over the years, these regulations have been amended as needed to be consistent with State law. In 2016, the State legislature passed three bills related to ADU’s: Senate Bill (SB) 1069, Assembly Bill (AB) 2299 and AB 2406, which effectively nullified the City’s existing Second Dwelling Unit chapter of the Development Code (17.100). In 2018, the Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 938, revising chapter 17.100 to be consistent with State law (Exhibit A). In 2019, the State legislature passed five bills further impacting local regulation of ADUs; Assembly Bill (AB) 881, AB 68, AB 587, AB 670 and Senate Bill (SB) 13. AB 881 and AB 68 impose additional restrictions on the types of development standards, use restrictions, and fees that cities may apply to ADU’s and JADU’s, and to further streamline the application approval process. SB 13 allows ADU owners to request a delay in enforcement of certain building code violations, provided that the correction of the violation is not necessary for health and safety. AB 587 authorizes cities to allow a deed-restricted, affordable ADU built or developed by a nonprofit to be sold separately from the primary residence. AB 670 makes unlawful any covenant, condition or restriction that would prohibit or unreasonably restrict an ADU or JADU on a single-family residential lot. All these bills became effective, January 1, 2020. AB 881 and AB 68 affect ADU development regulations in the Development Code and must be amended. DATE: January 22, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II 580 580 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2020-00007 MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 22, 2020 Page 2 ANALYSIS: The City Attorney’s office has drafted a set of revisions to our current ADU regulations to be consistent with the revisions to state law, attached to the draft resolution of approval. These revisions include: • Reduction in maximum permitting time from 120 days to 60 days. • Permitting a JADU as well as an ADU on the same lot. • Eliminating the minimum lot size for an ADU or JADU. • Eliminating lot coverage requirements in specific instances. • Reducing the minimum setback for an ADU from 5 feet to 4 feet. • Eliminating the replacement of garage parking spaces with off street parking space, such as a driveway. • Eliminating the owner-occupancy requirement for one of the units on the property until 2025. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under Section 15282(h) of CEQA which establishes a statutory exemption for the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multi-family residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code pertaining to ADUs. The proposed code amendment is consistent with this exemption. FACTS FOR FINDING: Per Section 17.22.040 of the Development Code, amendments to the code may be approved only when the City Council finds that the Development Code amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. General Plan Housing Goal HE-1 promotes the creation of new opportunities that enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations. The development of accessory dwelling units provides an opportunity for additional development of low- and moderate-income housing. General Plan Land Use Goal LU-1.1 encourages the protection of neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment. The standards proposed designed to minimize impacts to surrounding and existing residential neighborhoods while ensuring compliance with State law. FISCAL IMPACT: The residential properties within the City are currently assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The development of accessory dwelling units will increase the value of the property on which it is constructed, and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed amendment does not specifically address a council goal but is necessary to comply with State law. 581 581 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2020-00007 MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 22, 2020 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a large 1/8th page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. To date, no comments have been received by staff regarding this amendment. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - August 8, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report Draft Resolution of Approval for Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00007 582 582 Exhibit A583583 584584 585585 586586 587587 RESOLUTION NO.20-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00007, AMENDING STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020- 00007, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as "the application". 2. On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 22, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. General Plan Housing Goal HE-1 promotes the creation of new opportunities that enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations; and b. General Plan Land Use Policy LU-1.1 encourages the protection of neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment; and c. By developing a revised ordinance governing accessory dwelling units, the City is permitting ADU’s as required by State law, with provisions to ensure that they are compatible with the main dwelling unit and surrounding neighborhood. 3. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under Section 15282(h) of CEQA which establishes a statutory exemption for the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 588 588 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-08 MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00007 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 22, 2020 Page 2 of the Government Code pertaining to ADUs. The proposed code amendment is consistent with this exemption. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2018-00606 as indicated in Attachment A incorporated herein by this reference. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January 2020, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 589 589 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to modify the development standards applicable to, for example, building height, setbacks, and architecture that will apply to single-family residential development within a specific area of the Red Hill community that is generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Base Line Road, west of Vineyard Avenue, and east of Grove Avenue (the City’s west boundary). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004, amending the Hillside Development standards outlined in Section 17.122.020 of the Municipal Code with the addition of standards and guidelines for parcels located on Camino Predera in the Red Hill neighborhood in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Tract 10035). BACKGROUND: The Red Hill neighborhood (hereafter referred to as “Red Hill”) is located generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Base Line Road, west of Vineyard Avenue, and east of Grove Avenue (the City’s west boundary. Red Hill is primarily developed with single-family residences and is well-known for its eclectic architectural styles and unique neighborhood characteristics. The properties within the Red Hill have a zoning designation of Low (L) Residential District. Most of it is also within the Hillside Overlay (the exception being the properties generally located between Base Line Road and Calle Del Prado). The zoning and Hillside Overlay both provide standards and guidelines for development in Red Hill. While most of Red Hill is built out, i.e. is fully developed with mostly single-family residences, Valle Vista Elementary School, and the Red Hill Country Club golf course, several vacant parcels still remain. The majority of these parcels are located within Tract 10035. This tract consists of a set of properties located along the north and south sides of Camino Predera and is generally located in the south part of Red Hill. Tract 10035 contains 38 lots. Of these 38 lots, 21 have been developed with single-family residences, 3 have been entitled and approved for single-family residences, and the remaining DATE: January 22, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Michael Smith, Principle Planner; David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner 590 590 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MCA DRC2020-00004 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 22, 2020 14 are vacant. The earliest home was constructed in the 1980’s, while others were constructed in the 1990’s and 2000’s. Over a time span of about 20 years, residents along Camino Predera have raised concerns regarding the development of these vacant properties. These concerns have been stated in the neighborhood meetings that were conducted as part of the review of proposals for developing these lots. These concerns also have been expressed during the Design Review Committee meetings and at the Planning Commission public hearings for most, if not all, proposals for constructing a house along that street. Many of these concerns have centered around the size (floor area), the form or visual “massing” of the homes, overbuilding on the subject lot, and crowding between structures. The overall theme of these concerns was that these proposals were not compatible nor consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. In late 2018, residents along Camino Predera appealed to the City Council the approval by the Planning Commission of a proposed single-family residence. The City Council reviewed the appeal during the public hearing and after considering the residents’ concerns, asked the applicant’s architect to revise the proposal. After the architect made significant modifications to the technical and design details of the propose residence, the City Council ultimately upheld the Planning Commission approval (noting that they would not have done so otherwise). It was at that time that the City Council requested that Staff review the current hillside development standards, and if necessary, establish new standards. The intent of the request was to alleviate the concerns noted above and to ensure that any residence proposed in the future would be compatible and consistent in character with existing residences in its vicinity. Similarly, it was to facilitate the development process by providing to future developers/homeowners clear objective standards. At that time, the scope of the review included all areas within the Hillside Overlay. However, Staff determined that the concerns that were stated by the residents were not commonly/frequently expressed by others who were residents or owned property elsewhere in the Overlay which includes areas in the northern part of the City such as Haven View Estates and Deer Creek. Staff concluded that the topography and development pattern of Red Hill was unlike other areas that were also in the Overlay and, therefore, the scope of the review was limited to Red Hill. As one of the first steps in this process, Staff conducted two workshops to obtain input from the Red Hill community that would more accurately inform Staff of the development-related issues, if any, in Red Hill. That information, in turn, would be used to create the proposed standards. The first was conducted on August 8, 2019 at Lion Center West located at 9161 Base Line Road. All residents in the Red Hill community were invited to attend, not just those that reside or own property on Camino Predera. At the first workshop, the residents were provided an explanation of the code amendment and process, as well as an overview of the expectations of the amendment. The residents were then encouraged to separate into small groups to discuss their concerns and highlight the things they appreciate most about their neighborhood. A significant number of residents from various areas of Red Hill were in attendance for the first workshop. This first workshop was very informative and the majority of those in attendance identified several positive attributes of Red Hill including its overall aesthetics, the eclectic architecture of the houses, and the relative rural character of the neighborhood. These same individuals indicated that they had no desire for more regulations. However, the residents and property owners along 591 591 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MCA DRC2020-00004 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 22, 2020 Camino Predera expressed mixed comments about development along that street Shortly after the workshop, Staff narrowed the focus of the evaluation of the standards so that they would only apply to Camino Predera. Staff began forming draft changes to the standards for discussion and feedback at the second workshop which was conducted on September 9, 2019 at Valle Vista Elementary School located at 7727 Valle Vista. Some of the most notable changes to the standards requested by the residents included, a maximum building height on the south side of Camino Predera, increased side yard setbacks, standards for roof designs, increased height for retaining walls, among others. At the second workshop attendance was slightly less than the first and consisted primarily of those who reside or owned property on Camino Predera. The attendees were encouraged to break into groups again to discuss their likes and/or dislikes with the proposed changes. The feedback was divided between those residing on or near Camino Predera, who were supportive of the changes, and property owners of vacant property on Camino Predera, who were not. Staff continued to refine the draft standards so they would be as reflected the comments received during the second workshop. ANALYSIS: The current standards for single-family residential development within the Low (L) Residential District and Hillside Overlay is as follows: Development Standard Minimum Requirement Front Yard Setback 37 feet Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet Rear Yard Setback 20 feet Lot Coverage 40 percent Building Height Overall 30 feet Retaining Wall Height 4 feet max Cut/Fill* 5 feet *Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning Commission Approval After receiving the feedback and analyzing the potential impacts to changes, Staff is recommending new/revised technical standards and design standards be incorporated into Section 17.122.20 (Hillside Development) for development on lots on Camino Predera as shown in Exhibit A. Many of the proposed changes, such as the increased maximum depth of excavation, increased maximum height of retaining walls, increased side yard setbacks, minimum building separation, roof line orientation, and the standards for garage design, are focused on minimizing the massing of the homes as seen from the street. The increased excavation and retaining wall height will allow a lower building pad of the lots (in particular, as seen from the street), which in turn will help accommodate the building height restriction. Additionally, the increased retaining wall height to 8 feet will no longer require the submittal and approval of a Minor Exception to go beyond the current maximum height of 4 feet. 592 592 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MCA DRC2020-00004 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 22, 2020 The proposed changes are intended to establish a reasonable development pattern that considers the topography, but also incorporates good site and street design principles for the remaining undeveloped lots on Camino Predera. The review process for single-family homes on Camino Predera also will be changed. The current review process for a single-family home in the Hillside Overlay requires review by the Design Review Committee (DRC) with final approval by the Planning Director. However, if the construction of the single-family home requires more than 5 feet of fill/cut, i.e. a revision to the topography that involves altering the height of the grade or earthen surface by 5 feet or more in depth, then following review by the DRC the application is forwarded to the Planning Commission for their final review and action. Staff notes to the Commission that this is the only threshold that, if exceeded, requires that the application be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Due to some of the revised technical standards, the above-noted discretionary review will not be necessary. With the proposed changes to the maximum depth of excavation (as shown in Exhibit A), a single-family home on Camino Predera could be approved by the Planning Director. The changes specifically would allow excavation to be up to 8 feet, instead of 5 feet, in depth. Any application for a single-family home that included cut that exceeds 8 feet in depth and/or fill that exceeds 5 feet in depth will still require review by the DRC and final action by the Planning Commission. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The Amendment does not propose any physical change to the environment itself. Based on this evidence and all of the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from further environmental review under CEQA. FACTS FOR FINDING: Per Section 17.22.040 of the Development Code, amendments to the code may be approved only when the City Council finds that the Development Code amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. General Plan Housing Goal HE-1 promotes the creation of new opportunities that enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balances supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations. General Plan Land Use Goal LU-1.1 encourages the protection of neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment. The standards proposed are designed to minimize impacts to surrounding and existing residential properties while ensuring compatibility and character of the neighborhood is preserved. FISCAL IMPACT: The residential properties within the City are currently assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The development of new single-family homes 593 593 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MCA DRC2020-00004 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 22, 2020 will increase the value of the property on which it is constructed, and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. Single-family residential construction is subject to one- time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the increase in housing. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the project, the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code. The Land Use element within the General Plan (Chapter 2) encourages infill development that facilitates sustainable and attractive development that complements the surrounding neighborhood. The City-initiated Municipal Code Amendment will help facilitate development while retaining compatibility and character of the existing neighborhood. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a large 1/8th page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. To date, no written comments have been received by staff regarding this amendment. Staff has received several telephone calls from residents of Red Hill regarding it. Following an explanation by Staff of the scope and purpose of the amendment, the residents had no further comments nor concerns. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Draft Technical and Design Standards Draft Resolution of Approval for Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004 594 594 Technical Standard Maximum Minimum Building Height South side of Camino Predera 14 feet 6 feet North side of Camino Predera 25 feet n/a Building Setbacks Front None 37 feet (+/- 5 feet) Rear None 20 feet Side None 10/15 feet Building Separation None 20 feet Excavation 8 feet n/a Wall Height Screen (freestanding)6 feet None Retaining (exposed/visible portion)8 feet None Design/Architectural Element Roof Roof Line Orientation Roof Design Garage Garage Doors Garage Dimensions Garage Plotting Garage Layout The front elevation (street-facing side) of the garage shall be a minimum of 5 feet behind the primary building elevation, with a 30-foot setback Measured from the closest building wall plane of any structure to the closest buiding wall plane on an adjacent lot Tandem parking spaces are permitted The horizontal ridgeline(s) of the roof (on any structure) shall be aligned perpendicular to the street. Where this is not possible, the maximum length of any horizontal ridgeline that is parallel to the street shall be limited to 20 feet in length. Flat roof designs are permitted Measured from the existing grade of the lot (Planning Commission review is not required) Measured from finished grade; maximum height within the front setback is 3 feet Measured from finished grade (a Minor Exception is not required); maximum height for new fill is 4 feet Garages with doors on the front elevation (street-facing elevation) shall have a maximum width of 20 feet (interior dimension) Tandem parking spaces are permitted Garage doors on the front (street-facing elevation) of a proposed house shall be restricted to one 2-car garage door or two 1-car garage doors. Special Technical Standards for Development on Camino Predera Standard Measured vertically from the top of curb at the street, in front of the midpoint of the front property line of the subject lot, to the highest point on the roof (or other feature such as a deck) Measured vertically from the finished grade surface of the lot to the highest point on the roof or other feature such as a deck Special Design Standards for Development on Camino Predera Measured between the side property lines and the building wall plane on the side elevations Notes Measured from the face of curb at the street to the closest building wall plane on the front elevation Measured from the rear property line to the closest building wall plane on the rear elevationExhibit A595595 RESOLUTION NO. 20-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004, A CITY-INITIATED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDEMNT TO THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OUTLINED IN TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020- 00004, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as "the application". 2. On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 22, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. General Plan Housing Goal HE-3 promotes the establishment of quality residential environments, which contribute to a well-functioning community by ensuring residential development that is not only attractive in design, but which functions to protect the public safety and welfare, and provide benefits to the community; and b. General Plan Land Use Goal LU-1 and Land Use Policy LU-1.1 aims to ensure established residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected, and encourages the protection of neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment; and c. By developing additional standards for Hillside development along Camino Predera, the City is ensuring future development is in keep with the existing character of the Red Hill community ordinance and further ensuring that future development is compatible with the surrounding community. 3. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have significant effect on the 596 596 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-07 MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 22, 2020 Page 2 environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The Amendment does not propose any physical change to the environment itself. Based on this evidence and all of the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from further environmental review under CEQA. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004 as indicated in Attachment A incorporated herein by this reference. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January 2020, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 597 597