HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-09 - Agenda Packet CITY OF ■ . CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
February 9, 2022
7:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
B. Public Communications
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission on any item listed or not
listed on the agenda. The Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the agenda but set
the matter for a subsequent meeting.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2022.
D. Public Hearings
D1. LOCATED AT 11298 JERSEY BLVD NORTHWEST CORNER OF JERSEY BOULEVARD
AND MILLIKEN AVENUE—11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC -A request to construct a 159,580
square-foot industrial/warehouse building on a vacant 7.39-acre parcel within the Industrial
Employment (IE) District, APN: 0229-111-60. Staff has prepared an Environmental Impact
Report of environmental impacts for consideration. (Design Review DRC2019-00766).
D2. PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 —
GOLDEN MEADLOWLAND, LLC - A request for approval of a sixth 1-year extension of
time ("EOT") for previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, a subdivision of
150.79 acres located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and
East Avenue into 358 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low (up to 2
dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. APNs:
1087-081-12, -19, -20, -21, -22, -23, and -24. Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed EOT is covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) certified by the City Council on June 16, 2004, by City Council Resolution 04-206. No
further environmental review is required for the proposed EOT, which is within the scope of
the previous EIR. All requirements, mitigations, and conditions of approval associated with
the certified EIR and approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 remain applicable and
must be complied with. (Continued from January 26, 2022, to February 9, 2022,
Planning Commission Meeting.)
E. Director Announcements
F. Commission Announcements
G. Adjournment
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. State your name for the record and speak into the
microphone. After speaking, please complete a speaker card located on the podium. It is important to list
your name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to.
Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an
item, the Chairman may limit the time to 3 minutes in order to provide an opportunity for more people to be
heard. Speakers will be alerted when their time is up, and no further comments will be permitted.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Communications."
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.
As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill(cDcityofrc.us by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be
distributed to the Commissioners and included in the 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 available at www.CitvofRC.us.
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$3,279 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees
are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes can be found at
www.CitvofRC.us.
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,
February 3, 2022, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
HPC/PC Agenda— February 9, 2022
Page 2 of 2
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission Agenda
February 9, 2022
MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
7:00 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on
February 9, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Chair Dopp 7:02 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chair Dopp, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Boling and
Commissioner Daniels. Absent: Vice Chair Williams
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Matt Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City
Manager-Community Development, Interim Planning Director; Jennifer Nakamura,
Management Analyst II; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Jason Welday, Engineering Services
Director; Brian Sandona, Principal Civil Engineer; David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner; Vincent
Acuna, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chair Dopp opened the public communications and hearing no one, closed public
communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2022.
Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Boling approving Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously 4-0 vote (Absent: Vice Chair Williams)
D. Public Hearings
D1. LOCATED AT 11298 JERSEY BLVD NORTHWEST CORNER OF JERSEY
BOULEVARD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE — 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC - A request to
construct a 159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse building on a vacant 7.39-acre parcel
within the Industrial Employment (IE) District, APN: 0229-111-60. Staff has prepared an
Environmental Impact Report of environmental impacts for consideration. (Design Review
DRC2019-00766). Click or tap here to enter text.
Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation
(copy on file).
Commissioner Daniels asked about electric plug-in vehicle charging stations. Will it be provided with
the buildout or sometime in the future and is eleven charging stations the appropriate number for the
size of the building.
Vincent Acuna replied, this project was reviewed using the older code that was in place. In terms of
eleven that was being proposed will be reflected in the building plans and will be constructed.
Commissioner Daniels asked if there will be any solar provided with the facility.
Vincent Acuna answered there is none. Does not meet compliance with accordance Ordinance 982.
Commissioner Daniels asked if there was any discussion relating to screening the wrought iron fence
so there is no visibility of docking areas from the driveway off Milliken Avenue.
Vincent Acuna mentioned there will be some visibility of the loading area but because of the length of
the driveway, it was determined it may not be an issue, but Staff can look into further and condition the
project to include that screening from Milliken Avenue.
Commissioner Daniels stated on the renderings at the corner elevation, it showing fake elbows
supporting the roof over the main entrance. Does that same treatment carry through other entrances
of buildings on the tower elements.
Vincent Acuna answered yes.
Applicant
Chair Dopp opened public hearing.
For the record, it is noted the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the
agenda packet. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details:
D2. PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 —
GOLDEN MEADLOWLAND, LLC -A request for a sixth 1-year extension of time (EOT)for
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 previously approved in 2004 to subdivide 150.79 acres
located along the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue
into 358 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low (up to 2 dwelling units
per acre) Residential Districts of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. APNs: 1087-081-12, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. (Continued from January 26, 2022,to February 9,2022, Planning
Commission Meeting.)
David Eoff, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on
file).
Chair Dopp opened public hearing.
For the record, it is noted the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the
agenda packet, expressing support in favor for the proposed extension of time. The actual
correspondence should be referred to for details:
HPC/PC MINUTES—January 26, 2022
Page 2of3
Draft
• Edward B. Ortiz, Jeff and Danielle Cross, Don Horvatich, Liuzong Zhou and Xiang Liu,
Rosemary Kirkland, Lisa Stimpson, Brian and Patricia Gebhardt, Colleen Kuhns, Olga
Gutierrez,Aldo Liberto, Eric Spaeth, Chuck Abney, Michael D'Elia, Steve and Kimberly Troli,
Matthew D. Francois, Kevin Walk, Clifford Daniels, Jeff Unger, Dennis Hunt, Kristi Brown,
Ed Aldaz, Cynthia Cater, Art Carlos, Arika Senecal, Joseph Davis, Michael Liu, Loren
Greenwell, Yan, Carlos Rodriguez, Jennifer Jiao, Eddy Vuylsteker, Emilio Olguin, Mark
Hager, Debbie Terry, Caren Clifford, Alexandra Davis, Sofia Davis, Don and DiAnne
Drachand, Nader Qaqiesh.
Motion by Commissioner Morales; Second motion by Chair Dopp. Motion carried 4-0 vote (Absent -
Vice Chair Williams) to continue the item and Staff will draft a Resolution to support the findings of the
1-year extension.
E. Director Announcements - None
F. Commission Announcements — None
G. Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner Boling, second by Commissioner Daniels to adjourn the meeting, motion carried
unanimously, 4-0 vote. (Absent—Vice Chair Williams) Meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill
Executive Assistant, Planning Department
Approved:
HPC/PC MINUTES—January 26, 2022
Page 3 of 3
Draft
L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
�l
DAT February 9, 2022
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager/Interim Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: LOCATED AT 11298 JERSEY BLVD NORTHWEST CORNER OF JERSEY
BOULEVARD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE — 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC - A
request to construct a 159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse building on a
vacant 7.39-acre parcel within the Industrial Employment (IE) District, APN: 0229-
111-60. Staff has prepared an Environmental Impact Report of environmental
impacts for consideration. (Design Review DRC2019-00766).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action:
• Certify the attached Environmental Impact Report of environmental impacts and adopt the project's
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
•Approve Design Review DRC2019-00766 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval
with Conditions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A request to construct a 159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse building on a vacant 7.39-acre site.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of 7.39 acres (Exhibit A). The rectangular project site has
dimensions of about 750 feet east to west and about 450 feet north to south. The street frontage of the site
along Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue is about 680 feet and 450 feet respectively. The site is generally
level with a gradient from north to south. The elevation of the site is about 1,140 feet and 1,130 feet at the
north and south property lines respectively, which results in a change in elevation of about 10 feet. There are
no trees on the site and vegetation/ground cover is very limited.
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 Industrial Employment Industrial Employment IE District
North Industrial/Warehouse Buildings Neo Industrial Neo Industrial NI District
South Fire Station and Training Center Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District
East Industrial/Warehouse Building Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District
West Industrial/Warehouse Building Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant proposes to construct an industrial/warehouse building totaling 159,580 square
feet, divided into four separate units. (Exhibit B). Units range in size from 38,490 to 42,368 square feet,
with each unit featuring an office and restroom area of roughly 2,000 square feet. All office/restroom
areas are located toward the front of the building either along Jersey Boulevard or Milliken Avenue. No
specific use has been proposed for any of the units at this time, although it is anticipated that the building
will primarily house small warehouse/storage/distribution businesses.
The dock loading/storage area will be located on the north side (rear) of the building away from public
view. The rear loading/unloading area will be secured by a 6-foot-high wrought iron fence along the
interior north and east property line. Retaining walls with a maximum height of 4 feet and 6 inches are
proposed on two areas along the site's interior north property line to make up for the grade difference
between the subject property and the existing lot to the north. The combined height of all iron fencing
and retaining walls is 8 feet, meeting the 8-foot maximum wall height for industrial areas.
On July 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 982 which established new development
standards for industrial projects throughout the City in response to a high demand in industrial
development. This project is exempt from Ordinance 982 as the project was deemed complete on
January 4, 2021, prior to Ordinance 982 becoming effective on August 20, 2021.
The proposed project meets all applicable development standards according to the development code
prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982 for the Industrial Employment (IE) District (formerly Minimum
Impact/Heavy Industrial), as shown in the table below. The project also complies with the landscaping
requirements as prescribed in the Development Code. The distribution of landscaping will be generally
along the street frontages, in the parking lot, and along the south and west sides of the project site.
Development Standard Required Proposed Com lies?
Building Height Max 70' * 45' YES ✓
Floor Area Ratio 0.4 to 0.6 0.5 YES ✓
Front Setback- Major Arterial Min. 45' 63' YES ✓
Milliken Avenue
Front Setback— Collector Min. 25' 85' YES ✓
(Jersey Boulevard
Rear Setback 0' 121' YES ✓
Landscape Percentage J Min. 10% 110.81% YES ✓
Landscape — Number of Trees I Min. 31 1 111 YES ✓
*Max 70 feet as long as building is set back 1 foot from front setback for every 1-foot building height exceeds 35 feet.
B. Architecture: The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of two
colors. The building will have form-lined concrete panels at various locations (Exhibit C). As the uses
expected within the building are to be logistics oriented, there is limited articulation of the wall planes in
order to maximize the efficiency of the interior space. However, this limited articulation does not result in
an overwhelming building mass, as vertical columns of sandblasted concrete break up the building
facade.Additionally, a generous application of glass panels along the building's east and south elevations
facing public streets resemble the appearance of an office building (Exhibit D). Four standing seam
canopies are featured above the four suite entrances along the building's south elevation, further
increasing architectural interest.
Page 2 of 6
C. Parking and Circulation: There are three proposed points of vehicular access located along the south
(Jersey Boulevard) and northeast (Milliken Avenue) portions of the project site. Two driveways leading
directly to the rear loading dock will be secured by sliding wrought iron gates. To maintain adequate
ingress and egress for emergency vehicles for the public safety facility immediately south of the site, the
project is conditioned to only allow right in, right out truck traffic from the westernmost driveway along
Jersey Boulevard. 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 provide
91 vehicle parking spaces based on the proposed 151,453 square feet of warehouse and 8,127 square
feet of office area as shown in the following table:
Type of Use Floor Area Parking Number of
(Square Feet) Ratio Spaces Required
Proposed Building (overall) 159,580
Office 8,127 1/250 33
Warehouse 151,453 varies' 58
Total Required/Total Provided: 91/912
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. 12 trailer parking spaces are required,and 12 are provided.
D. Rail Spur: An existing north-south rail spur is located along the west property line of the project site. Per
Section 17.36.040.D.7 of the Development Code, the project is required to account for potential rail
service. The project proponent is not required to construct rail-related improvements on the property.
However, the project is required to demonstrate how the site could have a functional/practical rail service
in the event that any future owner/tenant decides that rail service is required/desired.
The applicant has prepared an Alternate Site Plan (Exhibit E) that shows a proposed rail spur aligned
along the west of the site and adjacent to the west side of the building, with the rail spur entering the
property at the northwest corner of the site. In the event that rail service is established, a drive aisle
running north to south of the project site will need to be modified for one-way traffic. No reduction in the
number of parking stalls will occur. Access by passenger vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles would
continue to comply with the applicable requirements described in the Development Code and
Building/Fire Code. The architecture and floor area of the building would not be affected by the addition
of the rail spur.
E. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Oaxaca,
Williams, and Smith) on February 2, 2021. No major or secondary issues were discussed, as reflected
in the Design Review Committee Comments (Exhibit F). The Committee recommended approval of the
project as proposed to the Planning Commission.
F. 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 required per Section
17.124.020.C. is $159,580. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that
requires the public art requirement to be met prior to occupancy.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No.
Page 3 of 6
2021060608), has been prepared for this project. Under CEQA, the purpose of an EIR is to inform the public
about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or
lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR become a
planning tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best
land use for the project site.
The intent of this EIR is to address and evaluate potentially significant impacts of the proposed project and
identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these
impacts. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures is provided
in the Final EIR. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process:
Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) serves as public
notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and
other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the
NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential
significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting is to
receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates
to the project and environment.
Accordingly, a notice advertising both the NOP and Public Scoping Meeting was prepared for the project and
circulated on June 28, 2021, to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2021060608), public agencies, Native
American tribes, those interested parties who had previously requested notification and all property owners
within 660 feet of the subject site. The notice advertising the NOP and the public scoping meeting was also
published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on June 25, 2021 and made publicly available on the City's website.
The Public Scoping Meeting was held virtually over Zoom on July 13, 2021. A representative from the
Southwest Carpenter's Union was in attendance and discussed the importance of hiring a local workforce for
the construction of the project. The public comment period to respond to the NOP closed on August 3, 2021
and a comment letter was received from the Native American Heritage Commission. Written responses to all
significant environmental issues raised were prepared and made available in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR).
AB 52 Compliance: Notification in accordance with AB 52 was sent on January 11, 2021 to tribal communities
from a list of six tribes that have requested notification by the city. In response, the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians (SMBMI) responded with comments though they did not request consultation. Rather the SMBMI
provided language which they requested be made a part of the project mitigations. Accordingly, language from
SMBMI has been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). One other tribe,
the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, also responded to the City's notification and requested
for consultation. However, no response from the tribe was received after multiple attempts to set up a
consultation. Therefore, mitigation measures previously approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
— Kizh Nation were incorporated into the MMRP.
Draft EIR Preparation and Circulation: Following the NOP and Public Scoping Meeting, a DEIR was prepared
and was distributed to Responsible and Trustee agencies, and individuals who requested to review the DEIR.
The DEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on November 12, 2021 with the comment period
concluding on December 27, 2021. A Notice of Availability including electronic links to the DEIR and all
technical appendices was posted at the County, published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, mailed to all
property owners within 660 feet, interested parties requesting such notification and posted on the city's website
on November 9, 2021. Further, and also on November 9, 2021, the DEIR and all technical appendices were
provided to the Office of Planning and Research via the online "CEQAnet" portal for distribution to Responsible
and Trustee agencies and hard copies of the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided for public
review at the following locations:
Page 4 of 6
• Archibald Library— 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730;
• Paul A Biane Library— 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739;
• Planning Department Public Counter at City Hall — 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91730.
Comments were received from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) and Lozeau Drury, LLP.
The CVWD letter received on November 30, 2021, requested that the DEIR reference CVWD's 2020 Urban
Management Plan (UWMP) instead of the 2015 UWMP, provided notification that the applicant may be
responsible for relocating a sewer main adjacent to the subject site, and contained a reminder to coordinate
with the CVWD's engineering department to determine pipeline capacity. The Final Environmental Impact
Report(FEIR) made all pertinent corrections with regards to the UWMP, clarified that the presence of the main
sewer line adjacent to the property has already been addressed in the DEIR, and noted that coordination with
CVWD's Engineering Department is already required per the City's Standard Conditions of Approval.
The letter received from Lozeau Drury, LLP received on November 19, 2021, stated that the DEIR fails as an
informational document and fails to impose feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project's impacts. The
letter failed to provide any substantial evidence to explain or support this comment. Given the lack of substantial
evidence supporting their claim, no additional analysis, modification, mitigation or recirculation of the Draft EIR
is required.
Technical appendices and supporting documentation can be referenced on the City`s website under the tab
"CEQA Documents Available for Review" under the Current Projects & Planning Initiatives which can be
accessed here: https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning.
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP): In compliance with CEQA, a monitoring program has been
prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design
feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing
milestones for each mitigation measure.
Findings of Fact in Support of Determinations Related to Significant Environmental Impacts: The EIR
concludes that upon implementation of the project and all recommended mitigation measures, impacts
associated with the project would remain less than significant. No significant and unavoidable impact was
identified; thus, it is determined that no Statement of Overriding Consideration is required to be adopted.
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.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has submitted a Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman and Associates, dated
April 5, 2021. The Fiscal Impact Analysis concluded that the City would receive an estimated one-time
development impact fee revenue of $1,020,930. Additionally, the project would produce an annual recurring
surplus to the General Fund in the amount of $3,492 and $5,224 to the Library Fund from property tax
revenues.
Page 5 of 6
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The development of the project achieves the City Council's Core Value of "Intentionally embracing and
anticipating the future," and "continuous improvement." In addition to providing the City with new industrial
warehouse facilities which will attract quality tenants, the project also results in parkway improvements along
Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, enhancing the visual character and streetscape of these throughfares.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A-Aerial
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Elevations
Exhibit D - Renderings
Exhibit E - Alternate Site Plan for Rail Service
Exhibit F - Design Review Committee Comments (February 2, 2021) and Action Agenda
Exhibit G - Environmental Impact Report
Exhibit H - Mitigation Monitoring Program
Exhibit I - Draft Resolution 22-001 of Adoption for Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Exhibit J - Draft Resolution 22-002 of Approval for Design Review DRC2019-00766
Exhibit K - Statement of Agreement DRC2019-00766
Exhibit L - Conditions of Approval DRC2019-00766
Page 6 of 6
wn.r.
AAA•:+Y ti. J �y
Y 1��
.I
k
Dow Chemic - ,
PROJECT SITE
Jersey Blvd Jer 61vd Jersey Blvd � Jersey Blvd
Jersey Cifvd
IA
� ! g
1
SITE PLAN KEYED NOTES :
Ol 4" CO NC. WALK W/ *4 -a 18" OL, EA. WAY
PROVIDE EXP, JOINTS -s MAX, 12'-0" O,C,
AND TOOL JOINTS ,8 MAX 4'-0" O.C,
REFER TO CIVIL DWGS FOR ALL SLOPES
O2 GONG, CURB REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
LANAREA
3 24 25 3 O REFDR TOP LANDSCAPE DWGS.
- 13
O PAINT 4" WIDE BLUE COLOR
Ln PROPERTY LINE
F- I
O PAINT 4" WIDE PARKING STRIPING
27 O
7 37 BIKE RACK FOR 2 BIKES
38 2
TYP. TYP. wv O TRASH ENCLOSURE
10 61 3
7 TYP. PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROWS
TYP. ,n T
O INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL
10 CONCRETE PAVING REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
� 9
11 11 11 11 r� 11 ro" THICK CONCRETE PAVING AT LOADING DOCK
10 TYP'
26 REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
T
36 36 36 TYP. 38
LOADING TYP• LOADING LOADING TYP. LCADING TYP- 12 TRUNCATED DOMES
DOCK e e e QCCK DOCK e e = CK
e e � @ � � e e � � 13 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
TYP. I4'- " 14'- " 14'- " 14'- 14'- " 14'- " TYP• 14'- " 14'- 14'- 14'- ENTRANCE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN
19 19 19 16
15 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN U
o
a 3 DOCK DOORS 3 DOCK DOORS 3 DOCK DOORS 3 DOCK DOORS [E=LE=C PROP.RIGHT-OF-WAY 16 ELECTRICAL ROOM
DEDICATION Ld
\\1144DO FF. t P It4m73 FF• 17 PROVIDE PERMANENT MARKING ON GROUND Q
114350 PAD 114023 PAD AS PER CGBSC SECTION 5.1062.1 TO READ 0 (.0
W "CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV" _
31 Z O
J Q �
18 ul
HATCHED AREA OF TOTAL 11 PARKING STALLS INDICATES m ~
THE FUTURE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE Q
SUPPLY EQUIPMENT, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR O v
o I RACEWAY BETWEEN SERVICE PANEL AND SUBPANEL J1 Q
19 l00"x 60" AND 64"x60" CONC. LANDING AT DOUBLE DOORS 0
AND SINGLE DOORS RESPECTIVELY WITH MAXIMUM 29. SLOPE W O z
D O
2 20 RAMP WITH MAXIMUM 833% SLOPE 00 C
O
00
15'-0" 21 PATH OF TRAVEL 0-)
22 FIRE SPRINKLER RISER ONE AT EACH UNIT TOTAL OF 4
37
3 TYP• 23 FREE STANDING MONUMENT
4 -1UNIT "104" UNIT "103„ UNIT '110211 UNIT "101" UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT
30'-01, 38,490 SQ,FT. 39,213 SQ, FT.
N 24 E
39,213 SQ. FT, 42,368 SQ, FT, XISTING 20'-0" SEWER EASMENT
25 RELOCATED EXISTING 20'-0" SEWER EASMENT
REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
10 TYP, 26 DRIVEWAY REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
27 GONG. WHEEL STOP
155'-2" 155'-2" 155'-2" 15l'-II" 15'-O 28 OUTDOOR EMPLOYEE AREA SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
32
29 MOTORIZED (a) SLIDING (b) SWINGING 6'-0" HIGH GATE
33 FOR ELEVATIONS, REFER TO SHEET A-12
9 FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PARKING 4 LANDSCAPE = 25'-0"
31 31 STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK = 45'-0" 0
i
OFFICE OFFICE 32 SIDE YARD SETBACK = 5'-0"
114283 FF. 1139.11 FF, 8 33 STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK DUE TO l'-O" INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT = 52'-0"
114233 PAD OFFICE OFFICE TYP, 113921 PAP 34 STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK DUE TO 10'-0" INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT = 55'-0" >
29'-10° 1 S 15 J
1 uP TYP, 1 � 35 LINE OF 1'-0" PARKING OVERHANG m
6 36 TRAILER SPACE PARKING x w
u� 00 2
~ 11'-0" 9�_0�� 9'_0�� 9�_0�� 9�_0�� 9 e 20 9'-0" i p IJ (n
1 - - 37 EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT J �
Ld
9 28 ® o 0 0 0 0 21 uP '- '- '- ® 21 o 0 0 0 35 ® ° 38 LIGHT POLE SEE PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN o
_ 9 34 3 20 0 B Z
4 3 17 18 34 38 = 20 �O NOTE.
12 4 TYP, 3 8 17 18 8 p �
to TYP. TYP. TYP. rrP 10 TYP ALL PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PAINTED WITH DOUBLE STRIPE, w Q
21 TYP. 38 T PER RCMC SECTION 11.64.080(AX1) J < U
Q z
ri 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" = 9'-0" 9'-0° 9'-0° 9'-0" (�
36 E�T
Yf-H, 30 f 14 TYP. - 23 PROJECT SUMMARY w z a
_ �� B J O W
14 E 3 35 14 e 3 35 30 I° OWNER / DEVELOPER : —
45 DRIVEWAY TYP. TYP, p Lu N 30 DRIVEWAY TYP. TYP. P W
TY 11298 JERSEY BLVD., LLC o
26OPE �' oB Pe PB 1801 SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE. Z O
26 �� DEDICATION r-oF-WAY MONROVIA, CA 9101(o w v
0 37
ZZ
LLJ o a
II. PROJECT ADDRESS : cjr) 0
NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVE. 4 JERSEY BLVD. �
BLVD. bi
jERSEY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91130
U ~
III. CODE DATA: o 0
z
ZONING : MINI
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION : V-B
SIT P ANx OCCUPANCY - B, SI Z w 00,cam, o
N2
o SHEET INDEX STORY : 1 O z Z �C
VLI Q a
z aa-5
A-1 SITE PLAN AND PROJECT INFORMATION IV. SITE : a��-'--�+ U) Z 0-U- E
A-1.1 FIRE ACCESS PLAN
APN'S : 0229-111-60-0-000 � W J
LOT AREA : 321,988 50. FT, (1.39 AG)
A-1.2 FENCE SITE PLAN TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA : 35,565 50, FT. (11%) U
A-1.3 PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN REQUIRED BREAK AREA : 4 x 500 = 2,000 SQFT,
A-LB ALTERNATE SITE PLAN AND PROJECT INFORMATION PROVIDED BREAK AREA : 4023 SQ. FT. a N
ao
A-2 FLOOR PLAN Lu V. BUILDINGS AREA : '—' Z ~U
li J p F U
A-3 ROOF PLAN
TOTAL WAREHOUSE AREA : 143,014 SQ. FT, N = o
A-4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS z w 0 3
TOTAL MEZZANINE STORAGE AREA : 8,121 SQ, FT, O o
L-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN TOTAL OFFICE AREA : 8,121 SQ. FT,
L-2 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE NOTES AND CALL ELECTRICAL ROOM AREA : 312 50, FT.
1 OF 1 SITE UTILIZATION MAP TOTAL BUILDING AREA : 159,580 5Q, FT, (4(35% FAR)
1 OF 1 CUT & FILL EXHIBIT
1 OF 4 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN VI. PARKING :
2 OF 4 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN REQUIRED PARKING :
3 OF 4 ALTERNATE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN WAREHOUSE INCLUDING MEZZANINE : o
0
4 OF 4 ALTERNATE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FIRST 20,000 50, FT. : 20,000 6 1/1000 = 20 STALLS N
SECOND 20,000 SQ, FT. : 20,000 6 1/2000 = 10 STALLS Z
1 OF 2 WQMP SITE PLAN OVER 40,000 SQ. FT. : 111,453 -a 1/4000 = 28 STALLS a
o cYi a o
2 OF 2 WQMP SITE PLAN OFFICES : 8,121 s 1/250 = 33 STALLS
TOTAL REQUIRED : 91 STALLS M
TOTAL PROVIDED : 91 STALLS r*l
m
0
WA00)O7/47
MIT
aal 4 11
— m M. "•'""NtlN"'""' nP m nP m m m P nr_ arse,n
SOUTH ELEVATION ,
WALE P.1tli'
SOP' Q:P OO w�aW.wsw.omena�aea.�
��wPwrm. J
rr Mimi
• t . � '�u.rorraro,.awsew.�roe.uaeiwn gas
Dw�torr,D. w �o
EASTELEVATIONm. WEST ELEVATION m. m. m_ �' `ra•"i•r,Wu..x�nnmu� rn $
N
OCYE�P•1.'i' 9LNE:1'•10'-0' ®�Ye t1Pa�brtcxltusnv5
. N 3 . V I S U A L I Z A Tr 3 . V 11 S A L I Z A T 1 .
t
NORTH ELEVATION w
0 3a
Q�t
N a�
N`MWCQG. U 8�
rs®a®rtmJ �
Oww�vmc. Y
�mmJ
�ia+a PiPgf£} 7.p Z
(G w
�W
! ! f f f f f f f f 9 f f f f f f f 4 9
11d eel°'!
Al f d f f n/l VS
vH w�ace viKw
PFrx cm
DavFn L�xDicsm 4 1 30
Ln�aw,mxrLoax M. M. ttP. 8 10 8 S
ENLARGED PARTIAL ELEVATION
use e. o g
R C
Exhibit C
�. � l � �� i - j ���`�- �''� �` �� �� rya. •.
•Tom' - ��� .i-:.11 � - _. _ � _ - � ..- _ � �� /�. � - - � .; _
ih. ,ry � •�' k�� i�yrk'".rti...a r.■■.,, .. .. ..
JERSEYalimai Is,;
INDUSTRIAL
M COMPLEX
■ -UT WILLIAM SIMPSON
NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVE.AND JERSEY BLVD. !�N r
RANCHO ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING
ORCHARD.23
FOREST.LAKE 0 F 19491 206-9955
I '
, � I
, � I
, � I
, � I
I
SITE PLAN KEYED NOTES :
I
O1 4" CONC. WALK 1 1*4 a 18" O.C. EA, WAY
1 I PROVIDE EXP. JOINTS a MAX. 12'-0" O.C.
AND TOOL JOINTS 6 MAX 4'-0" O.C.
I
REFER t0 CIVIL DWGS FOR ALL SLOPES
O2 CONC. CURB REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
I
O LANDSCAPE AREA
3 24 25 3 I REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS.
O PAINT 4" WIDE BLUE COLOR
PROPERTY LINE , I I
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- - PAINT 4" WIDE PARKING STRIPING
I
6 BIKE RACK FOR 2 BIKES
I
37
O
TYP. TYP. ��O I ' wM I 0 TRASH ENCLOSURE
I , 1 3 oI
- 7 TYP. I Os PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROWS
- I I
TYP. ,� , , L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T
O INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL
8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ACCESSIBILITY.
I i - - - -
IL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 CONCRETE PAVING REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
11 11 11 11 9 I 11 6 R
" THICK CONCRETE PAVING AT LOADING DOCK
I
10 TYP. - 26 REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
L D
36 36 36 36 TYP. 38 m
TYP. LOADING TYP, LOADING LOADING TYP. LCADING TYP. II 12 TRUNCATED DOMES
I a DOCK ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
CK DO K = = CK
I I � � � .0I I � 13� e a" � � � .0
TYP. 14'- 14'- 14'- 14'- 14_ TYP. 14'- 14'- 14'- 14'- 141- ENTRANCE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN
I 15 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN U
I I 3 DOCK DOORS 3 DOCK DOORS 3 DOCK DOORS 3 DOCK DOORS JELEC M I I PROP.RIGHT-OF-WAY I 16 ELECTRICAL ROOM
22 DEDICATION I W
I TYP. 312 SQ. FT. i I 17 PROVIDE PERMANENT MARKING ON GROUND < (.0
, I AS PER CGBSC SECTION 5.1062.1 TO READ
"CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV"
I � zo
Lu
31 I J Q 0')18 HATCHED AREA OF TOTAL 11 PARKING STALLS INDICATES m ?Q
I THE FUTURE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE U
W i I SUPPLY EQUIPMENT, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR -2
I
I RACEWAY BETWEEN SERVICE PANEL AND SUBPANEL LLJ Q
j1 19 lmm"x 60" AND 64"x(o0" CONC. LANDING AT DOUBLE DOORS O
I AND SINGLE DOORS RESPECTIVELY WITH MAXIMUM 290 SLOPE W O Z
� O
20 RAMP WITH MAXIMUM 833io SLOPE pp o
00
I J I I I 0-)
I 21 PATH OF TRAVEL N
Q UNIT "104" UNIT 1110311 UNIT 11102" UNIT "1 1 "
W I I I 22 FIRE SPRINKLER RISER ONE AT EACH UNIT TOTAL OF 4
3%13 SQ. FT. 42,368 SQ. Ft. I 37 I
38,490 SQ. FT. 39213 SQ, FT, I 23 FREE STANDING MONUMENT
4 - 30'- e I I 3 TYP. I1� I
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT
' I UNIT "104" UNIT "103„ UNIT 102 UNIT "101 "
I I
I I �• 24 EXISTING 20'-0" SEWER EASMENT
1 I
I 1 I 25 RELOCATED EXISTING 20'-0" SEWER EASMENT
I / O REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
I I •� ..; Y 1
10 TYP I I I 26 DRIVEWAY REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS
I I I ROLL UP DOOR
LLI
FOR RAIL ROAD I Ii
27 CONC. WHEEL STOP
I -
155'-2" 155'-2" 155'-2" 15�'-11" 15'-O" OUTDOOR EMPLOYEE AREA SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
32 I
rO MOTORIZED (a) SLIDING (b) SWINGING 6'-0" HIGH GATE
29 FOR ELEVATIONS, REFER TO SHEET A-12
[V IWI-
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PARKING 4 LANDSCAPE = 25'-0"
0
I / STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK = 45'-0"
' THIN 11111111111 32 SIDE I OFFICE � , � � OFFICE DE YARD SETBACK = 5
� / � � i !
8 33 STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK DUE TO 1'-0" INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT = 52'-0" o
15 OFFICE OFFICE I / / 34 STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK DUE TO 10'-0" INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT = 55'-0" J
1s 1s I
uP TYP, L� — — �/ / 35 LINE OF I'-0" PARKING OVERHANG >-
UP - - - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — y 2� / 36 TRAILER SPACE PARKING Xbi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — W
~ 12'-0" V-0" V-0" V-0" V Oil 9 V2O 9'-0" _ = i / / J �
1 / / % 37 EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT w
I 28 ® o 0 0 0 0 21 uP r r •- ® o 0 0 0 ? ® / B / 38 L,E SEE PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN
I I 20 / o
I 15 3 20 2 u B Z
4 3 17 18 34 38 20 12 4 �—O / / � / Q 0)
TYP. 17 18 8
- - - _ - - - - 1 - - — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — - - - - - - - -
TYP_ — — — — TYP. 10 TYP. / / TYP. ALL PARKING SPAGES SHALL BE PAINTED WITH wQ
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I
21 TYP. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t7 T / / DOUBLE STRIPE PAVEMENT MARKINGS. J QU
�■ _ _ _ = 23 / Z Q
36 TYP 30 9'-m" v-m" 9'-m" 9'-011 14 LITYP
PROJECT SUMMARY Y z
- - -�� - - - - - - - - - - — �� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PB / ~ J�
3 3 -� / I. OWNER / DEVELOPER :
_ - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
45' DRIVEWAY 14 E ; 34 14 9 34 3
30 DRIVEWAY — � �
_ TYP. TYP, TYP. TYP. P / �
26 -- -- - -- -- - - PROPER.IY--LINE- -- PBvI -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11298 JERSEY BLVD., LLC z U
PE PB 1801 SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE. O O
- -- - - - DEDICATION / U
I -OF-WAY
MONROVIA, CA 9101(o w =
/ W �z
37 O Q
/ II. PROJECT ADDRESS : C/-) 0
LLJ
-- -—-—-—-—-—-—- -—- -—-— —- -—-—-—- —- -—- -—-—- -—-—-—- -—- - - 11298 JERSEY BLVD.
-JE-R&EY$LVD---- - -- --- -------- — — --- -------- -- -�- ----------------------
0
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91�30
III. CODE DATA: 0
ZONING : MINI
ALTERNATE SITE PLATYPE OF CONSTRUCTION : V-B N
x / OCCUPANCY : B, SI �-+ U W a a u
i i i i w STORY : 1 Z z �� a
z 0-U E
IV. SITE : w w
APN's : 0229-111-60-0-000
LOT AREA : 321,955 50. FT. (139 AC) U
3
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA : 35,565 SQ. FT. (11%)
� N
Vl O O
z WC4
V. BUILDINGS AREA : J N< U
TOTAL WAREHOUSE AREA : 143,014 SQ. FT. N a
Z 003
TOTAL MEZZANINE STORAGE AREA : 8,121 SQ. FT. O oLu
M
TOTAL OFFICE AREA : 8,121 SQ. FT, U N
ELECTRICAL ROOM AREA : 312 SQ, FT.
TOTAL BUILDING AREA - 159,580 SQ, FT,
45 I -0 I I VI. PARKING :
01
REQUIRED PARKING
GATE ELEVATION WAREHOUSE INCLUDING MEZZANINE : N
FIRST 20,000 SQ, FT. : 20,000 6 1/1000 = 20 STALLS N
• • 5G AL E = 3/1(o = 11 _ i i SECOND 20,000 SQ, FT. : 20,000 1/2000 = 10 STALLS Z
OVER 40,000 SQ. FT. : 111,453 6 1/4000 = 28 STALLS a ��
o cYi a o
OFFICES : 8,121 s 1/250 = 33 STALLS
Lo
TOTAL REQUIRED : 91 STALLS M
TOTAL PROVIDED : 91 STALLS
m
0
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
February 2, 2021
7:00 p.m.
Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766 — 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC - A request to construct a
159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse building on a vacant 7.39-acre parcel within the
Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) District, located at the northwest corner of Jersey
Boulevard and Milliken Avenue —APN: 0229-111-60. Staff is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Site Characteristics and Background: The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of 321,988
square feet (7.39 acres). The rectangular project site has dimensions of about 750 feet east to
west and about 450 feet north to south. The street frontage of the site along Jersey Boulevard
and Milliken Avenue is about 680 feet and 450 feet, respectively. The site is generally level with
a gradient from north to south. The elevation of the site is about 1,140 feet and 1,130 feet at the
north and south property lines respectively, which results in a change in elevation of about 10
feet. There are no trees on the site and vegetation/ground cover is very limited.
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 Heavy Industrial Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial
MI/HI District
North Industrial/Warehouse General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District
Buildings
South Fire Station Civic/Regional Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial
MI/HI District
East Industrial/Warehouse Heavy Industrial Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial
Building MI/HI District
West Industrial/Warehouse Heavy Industrial Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial
Building MI/HI District
Project Overview: The applicant proposes to construct an industrial/warehouse building totaling
159,580 square feet, divided into four separate units. Units range in size from 38,490 to 42,368
square feet, with each unit featuring an office and restroom area of roughly 2,000 square feet. All
office/restroom areas will be located toward the front of the building either along Jersey Boulevard
or Milliken Avenue. No specific use has been proposed for any of the units at this time, although
it is anticipated that the building will primarily house small warehouse/storage/distribution
businesses.
The dock loading/storage area will be located on the north side of the building away from public
view. There will be two points of vehicular access via two driveways at the southwest and
northeast corners of the project site. The building, based on the anticipated
warehousing/distribution use, is required to have 91 passenger vehicle parking stalls. The project
provides 91 stalls, meeting the parking requirement. As there are nine dock doors, a matching
number of trailer parking stalls are provided as required by the Development Code. The
distribution of landscaping is generally along the street frontages towards the east and south of
Exhibit F
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766 — 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC
February 2, 2021
Page 2
the project site, and within the building's parking area. Landscape coverage is 10.81%, slightly
exceeding the landscape coverage of 10% required by the Development Code.
An existing north-south rail spur is located along the west property line of the project site. Per
Section 17.36.040.D.6 of the Development Code, the project is required to account for potential
rail service. The project proponent is not required to construct rail-related improvements on the
property, however, the project is required to demonstrate how the site could have a
functional/practical rail service in the event that any future owner/tenant decides that rail service
is required/desired.
The applicant has prepared an Alternate Site Plan (Sheet A1.B) and a Grading Plan (Grading
Sheet 3 of 4)that show a proposed rail spur aligned along the west of the site and adjacent to the
west side of the building, with the rail spur entering the property at the northwest corner of the
site. In the event that rail service is established, a drive aisle running north to south of the project
site will need to be removed. However, no reduction in the number of parking stalls will occur.
Access by passenger vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles would continue to comply with
the applicable requirements described in the Development Code and Building/Fire Code. The
architecture and floor area of the building would not be affected by the addition of the rail spur.
The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of two colors.
The building will have form-lined concrete panels at various locations. As the uses expected within
the building are to be logistics oriented, there is limited articulation of the wall planes in order to
maximize the efficiency of the interior space. However, this limited articulation does not result in
an overwhelming building mass, as vertical columns of sandblasted concrete break up the
building fagade. Additionally, a generous application of glass panels along the building's east and
south elevations facing public streets give the building appearance of an office building. Four
standing seam canopies are featured above the four suite entrances along the building's south
elevation, further increasing architectural interest.
The rear loading/unloading area is secured by a 6-foot high wrought iron fence along the interior
north and east property lines of the site and sliding wrought iron gates are being installed at the
two driveway entrances. Retaining walls with a maximum height of 4 feet and 6 inches are
proposed on two areas along the site's interior north property line to make up for grade difference.
The combined height of all iron fencing and retaining walls meet the 8-foot maximum wall height
for industrial areas.
Staff Comments:
The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding the project:
None
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
None
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766 — 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC
February 2, 2021
Page 3
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
office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the
review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire
Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC)
screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of decorative
masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone or poured in-place concrete with design
elements incorporated to match the building.
2. All ground-mounted equipment, including utility boxes, transformers, and back-flow devices,
shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on
center. All ground-mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed
otherwise by the Fire Department.
3. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building. All
downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls.
4. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color.
5. Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public
right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the
building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the proposed project as submitted
to the Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
Members Present:
Staff Coordinator: Mike Smith, Principal Planner
r(r
4r im
Design Review Committee Meeting
AGENDA
February 2, 2021
MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order
The meeting of the Design Review Committee was held on February 2, 2021. The meeting was called to
order by Mike Smith, Staff Coordinator, at 7:00pm.
Design Review Committee members present: Francisco Oaxaca. Diane Williams. Mike Smith.
Staff Present: Sean McPherson, Senior Planner; and Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner.
B. Public Communications
Mike Smith opened the public communication and. after noting there were no public comments, closed
public communications
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regufar Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2021.
Motion by Oaxaca, second by Williams Motion carried 3-0 to adopt the minutes as presented.
D. Project Review Items
D1. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766 — 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC - A request to construct a
159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse building on a vacant 7.39-acre parcel within the
Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) District. located at the northwest corner of Jersey
Boulevard and Milliken Avenue — APN: 0229-111-60. Staff is preparing an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Staff presented the project to the Design Review Committee. Commissioners Williams and
Oaxaca liked that the building looks like an office building and expressed support for the design.
The Committee voted to advance the project to the full Planning Commission.
The Committee took the following action:
X Recommend approval to PC/PD.
D2. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00177 — KIMLEY-HORN FOR HILLWOOD DEVELOPMENT
CO. — A request for site plan and architectural design for the development of two industrial
warehouse buildings, parking, and landscape improvements on vacant parcels located east of
Etiwanda Avenue on the north of Napa Street; APN: 0229-291-54 and -46. An Environmental
Impact Report is being prepared for this project.
Staff provided a powerpoint presentation providing the facts of the project relative to the Design
Review Committee's review. At the end of the presentation, staff noted that there were two
items for which staff sought the DRCs input(employee break area in front setback, and chain-
link fence along existing rail spur). In addition, the project applicant also expressed concerns
regarding the relocation of an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) easement and related
infrastructure.
First, the project plans illustrated an employee break area shelter structure within the front
setback. Staff noted that structures are not permitted within the 25-foot front yard setback.
Discussion ensued on this item, with input from the applicant and applicant's architect.
Committee members Oaxaca and Williams both suggested that the applicant work with staff to
relocate the structure outside of the front setback. The applicant and applicant's architect
indicated that they would relocate the structure outside of the front setback.
Second, staff solicited the opinion of DRC members related to the proposed construction of a
chain-link fence along the existing rail spur, behind the front setback, and not visible from the
public right-of-way. Both Committee members Oaxaca and Williams indicated that a chain-link
fence in this location did not present a concern, provided that the fencing include slats for
screening as required by the Development Code.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the applicant's concerns related to the relocation of the
SCE easement and related infrastructure. Staff members Smith and McPherson both respond
stating that this was not a topic related to the Design Review Committee's purview, adding that
this will be discussed with the full Planning Commission. No,other discussion was held on this
item. Lastly, Commissioner Oaxaca asked staff to explain the annexation process relative to
this project. Staff member Smith briefly highlighted the annexation process in general terms
and concluded remarks by stating that this topic too would be discussed in detail with the full
Planning Commission.
The Committee took the following action:
X Recommend approval to PC/PD.
E. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 8:05pm.
Respectfully submitted,
4aLbethT4hornhffIl
Executive Assistant, Planning Department
Approved: DRC meeting February 16, 2021
Design Review Committee Regular Meeting Minutes -- February 2, 2021
Page 2 of 2
FINAL
Exhibit G—Environmental Impact Report
Due to file size,this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/CEQA%20Documents%2OAvailable%20for%2OReview/Jersey%20an
d%20Milliken%20Wa rehouse?preview=Appendix+G+-+Phase+Il+Investigation+(1).pdf
Exhibit G
FINAL
Jersey Industrial Complex Project
Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCH No. 2021060608
Prepared for:
riwej
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Contact: Vincent Acuna
Prepared by:
Birdseye Planning Group, LLC
P.O.Box 1956, Vista, CA 92085
Contact: Ryan Birdseye
January 2022
Exhibit H
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SECTION1. Authority.................................................................................................................1
SECTION 2. Monitoring Schedule .............................................................................................1
SECTION 3. Support Documentation........................................................................................2
SECTION 4. Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix...............................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................3
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
This page intentionally left blank.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 ii
MMRP
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SECTION 1. Authority
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared
pursuant to§21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) (Public Resources Code
§21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) §§15091(d) and
15097, to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures
required of the Jersey Industrial Complex Project(Project), as set forth in the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file in the offices of the
CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City).
The EIR addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate,
recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental
impacts. The Program detailed in the matrix table below is designed to monitor and ensure
implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.
The City is the Lead Agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities
for implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Program. The City may assign
responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction
manager or third-party monitor. However, as the Lead Agency, the City remains responsible for
ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this Program.
In some cases, the City is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in
order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that
such permits or approvals have been obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the
mitigation measure. The City's existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement
review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures
and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.
SECTION 2. Monitoring Schedule
Prior to construction, while detailed design plans are being prepared by City staff or its agents,
City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the
Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is
underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in
the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring
reports, as appropriate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with
regulatory permit conditions and monitoringfreporting as part of the regulatory permitting process
and will likely require submittal of formal monitoring reports. Once construction has been
completed, the City will monitor the Project as specified in the mitigation measures.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 1
MMRP
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
SECTION 3. Support Documentation
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation
measures shall be maintained in the Project file with the Program and shall be made available to
the public upon request.
SECTION 4. Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas
for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring,
and the responsible implementing and monitoring agencies.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 2
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Condition project to overlap architectural coating phase with the City of Rancho Prior to issuance of Plan check
building phase by approximately 44 total workdays to avoid exceeding the Cucamonga building permits
daily ROG standard. Prior to issuance of a building permit,the Applicant
shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga which demonstrates that the architectural coating phase will
overlap with the building phase by a minimum of 44 days.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)and Fish and City of Rancho Prior to grading On-site inspection,
Game Code, removal of any trees,shrubs,or any other potential nesting Cucamonga permit and/or separate submittal
habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season.The nesting construction permit
season extends from February 1 through August 31 but can vary slightly issuance;during
from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. If ground grading,excavation
disturbance and vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting and construction
season,a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds,shall be activities, upon
conducted by a qualified biologist within three(3)days of the start of any completion of
ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed monitoring
during construction. activities,and prior
to final engineering
If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance inspection.
survey,construction activities can commence thereafter provided activities
are able to maintain a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptors
and special-status species,this buffer will be expanded to 500 feet.A
biological monitor shall be present during construction activities within the
buffer area.to delineate the boundaries of the buffers and to monitor the
active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the
construction activity.
If the biologist determines that bird breeding activity is being disrupted,the
Project Applicant shall stop work, notify the City and coordinate with the
USFWS and CDFW to agree upon an avoidance/minimization approach.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 3
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
Upon agreement of the avoidance/minimization approach,work may
resume subject to the revisions and continued monitoring.
If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the clearance survey, in
conformance with the California Staff Report's protocols, no ground-
disturbing activities will be permitted within 656 feet of an occupied burrow
during the breeding season(February 1 to August 31), unless otherwise
authorized by CDFW.
Once the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged and left
the nest of any birds within the buffer area(s),or the nest otherwise
becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities
can occur.
Reporting. If no active nests are found during the pre-construction
clearance survey,the Project Applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga a brief letter report prepared by the biologist that documents
the negative survey results.The letter report shall also indicate that no
impacts to active avian nests will occur.
If active nests were found,the Project Applicant shall submit a final bird
survey monitoring report prepared by the project biologist to the City,the
USFWS and CDFW.The report shall include documentation of all bird
surveys, monitoring activities,coordination efforts with the wildlife agencies,
as-built construction drawings with an overlay of any active nests in the
survey areas, photographs of habitat areas during pre-construction and
post-construction conditions,and other relevant summary information
documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and that general
compliance was achieved for the avoidance/minimization provisions and the
biological monitoring program required by the wildlife agencies.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 4
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project City of Rancho Prior to issuance of Plan check,
activities,all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot Cucamonga grading separate submittal
buffer)shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of permit/during
Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find.Work on the other grading and
portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this construction
assessment period.Additionally,the SMBMI Cultural Resources
Department shall be contacted,as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any
pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the
archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find,so
as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
CUL-2: If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources,as City of Rancho During grading and On-site inspection,
defined by CEQA(as amended,2015),are discovered and avoidance Cucamonga construction separate submittal
cannot be ensured,the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and
Treatment Plan,the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review
and comment,as detailed within TCR-1.The archaeologist shall monitor the
remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.
CUL-3: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any City of Rancho Prior to issuance of Plan check,
activities associated with the Project,work in the immediate vicinity(within a Cucamonga grading separate submittal
100-foot buffer of the find)shall cease and the County Coroner shall be permit/during
contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code§7050.5 and that code grading and
enforced for the duration of the Project. If the human remains are construction
determined to be prehistoric,the coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission,which will determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendant.The Most Likely Descendant shall complete the inspection of
the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 5
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1:The SMBMI Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted,as City of Rancho Prior to issuance of Plan check,
detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1,of any pre-contact and/or historic-era Cucamonga grading separate submittal
cultural resources discovered during project implementation and be permit/during
provided information regarding the nature of the find,so as to provide Tribal grading and
input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed construction
significant,as defined by CEQA(as amended,2015),a cultural resource
Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in
coordination with SMBMI,and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this
Plan.This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents
SMBMI for the remainder of the Project,should SMBMI elect to place a
monitor on-site.
TCR-2:Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of City of Rancho During grading and Separate submittal
the Project(isolate records,site records,survey reports,testing reports, Cucamonga construction
etc.)shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination
to SMBMI.The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith,consult
with SMBMI throughout the life of the Project.
TCR-3:The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate City of Rancho Prior to issuance of On-site inspection,
for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Cucamonga grading other agency
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is permit/during permit/approval
listed under the NAHC's Tribal Contact list for the area of the Project grading and
location.This list is provided by the NAHC.The monitor/consultant will only construction
be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground
disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation 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 when the Project site grading and
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 6
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
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-4: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources,cease City of Rancho During grading and On-site inspection,
construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can Cucamonga construction other agency
be assessed.All archaeological resources unearthed by project permit/approval
construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and
tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin,the
Gabrieleno 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[q). 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.
TCR-5: Preservation in place(i.e.,avoidance)is the preferred manner of City of Rancho During grading and Onsite inspection,
treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,treatment may include Cucamonga construction other agency
implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the permit/approval
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.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 7
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
TCR-6: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98(d)(1) City of Rancho During grading and On-site inspection,
as an inhumation or cremation,and in any state of decomposition or Cucamonga construction other agency
skeletal completeness. Funerary objects,called associated grave goods in permit/approval
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.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 8
RESOLUTION NO. 22-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2021060608) PREPARED
FOR THE 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC PROJECT WHICH PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 159,580 SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE
BUILDING ON A VACANT 7.39-ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL
EMPLOYMENT (IE) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF JERSEY BOULEVARD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE - APN: 0229-111-60,
MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Recitals.
1. 11298 Jersey Blvd, LLC filed a development application for Design Review(DRC2019-
00766) for a development project as described in the title of this Resolution (the "Project").
2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might
have a significant environmental impact on several resources and determined that an EIR must
be prepared for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment.
3. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, on June 28, 2021, the City published a
Notice of Preparation (NOP)of a Draft EIR for the Project, and circulated the NOP and initial study
to the Office of Planning and Research, the County Clerk, responsible and trustee agencies,
governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the application for
a 30-day public review period.
4. The City received comments from the Native American Heritage Commission in
response to the NOP.
5. After providing notice to the required tribes under AB 52, the City received comments
from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation in accordance with the City's obligations under AB 52.
6. The City released the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period beginning November
12, 2021 and ending on December 27, 2021. During the public review period the City received a
total of 2 comment letters on the Draft EIR that required a response, and the City has prepared
response to each comment.
7. The EIR concludes that with the inclusion of mitigation measures, the Project will not
have a significant impact on any environmental resources.
8. The City prepared a Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, which contains the City's
responses to comments, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project,
the Draft EIR as modified by the Final EIR, and all appendices.
Exhibit I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-01
11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS
February 9, 2022
Page 2
9. On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the Project and concluded the hearing on that date.
10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Findings. Based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR,
together with its appendices, and all other available evidence presented to the Planning
Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 9, 2022, including written
and oral staff reports and public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
a. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded due
notice and an opportunity to comment on the EIR and the Project.
b. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving the Project, make one or more of the following written findings for each significant effect
identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR;
ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or
iii. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
These required findings are set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference.
C. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 4 of Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
d. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant,
but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Section 5
of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-01
11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS
February 9, 2022
Page 3
e. No environmental impacts were identified in the Final EIR as significant and
unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, and a statement further
confirming this conclusion is provided in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
f. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance
with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is
attached hereto as Exhibit B and is hereby incorporated herein by reference. Further, the
mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project.
g. Prior to taking action on the Final EIR and approving the Project, the
Planning Commission specifically finds and certifies that: (1) the Final EIR was presented to the
Planning Commission; (2) the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EIR and
all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony
presented to it during meetings and hearings; (3) the Final EIR is adequate and has been
completed in full compliance with CEQA; and (4)the Final EIR reflects the Planning Commission's
independent judgment and analysis.
h. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
produced any substantial new information requiring additional recirculation or additional
environmental review of the Project under CEQA.
3. Determination. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the
administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the Final EIR, adopts
findings pursuant to the CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached
hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Location of Record. The documents and other materials, including the staff
reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and specifications, that constitute the record on
which this Resolution is based are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of
the Planning Director, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. All such
documents are incorporated herein by reference.
5. Certification. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Bryan Dopp, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-01
11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS
February 9, 2022
Page 4
ATTEST:
Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED, AP, Secretary
I, Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED, AP, 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 9th day of February
2022, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT
for
Jersey Industrial Complex Project
SCH No. 2021060608
Prepared for:
rloot. j
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Contact: Vincent Acuna
Prepared by:
Birdseye Planning Group, LLC
P.O. Box 1956, Vista, CA 92085
Contact: Ryan Birdseye
January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
RANCHO TABLE OF CONTENTS
CUCAMONGA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
1.1. Purpose..................................................................................................................1
1.2. Records of Proceedings .........................................................................................3
1.3. Custodian and Location of Records.......................................................................4
1.4. CEQA Findings of Independent Judgment, Review and Analysis...........................4
SECTION 2. GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS ..........................................................................................4
SECTION 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACTS
3.1. Aesthetics...............................................................................................................6
3.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.......................................................................6
3.3. Biological Resources ..............................................................................................7
3.4. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................9
3.5. Energy....................................................................................................................9
3.6. Geology and Soils...................................................................................................9
3.7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................10
3.8. Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................12
3.9. Land Use and Planning.........................................................................................12
3.10. Mineral Resources...............................................................................................13
3.11. Noise....................................................................................................................14
3.12. Population and Housing.......................................................................................14
3.13. Public Services .....................................................................................................14
3.14. Recreation............................................................................................................15
3.15. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................................15
3.16. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................16
3.17. Wildfire ................................................................................................................16
SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT(NO MITIGATION REQUIRED)...............................................................17
4.1. Aesthetics.............................................................................................................17
4.2. Air Quality............................................................................................................18
4.3. Energy..................................................................................................................19
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 i
RANCHO TABLE OF CONTENTS
CUCAMONGA
4.4. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................19
4.5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................21
4.6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................21
4.7. Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................22
4.8. Noise....................................................................................................................23
4.9. Public Services .....................................................................................................24
4.10. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................................24
4.11. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................25
4.12. Wildfire ................................................................................................................26
SECTION S. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED .....................................................27
5.1. Air Quality............................................................................................................27
5.2. Biological Resources ............................................................................................29
5.3. Cultural Resources...............................................................................................31
5.4. Tribal Cultural Resources.....................................................................................33
SECTION 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT..........................36
6.1. Alternatives Considered and Rejected ................................................................36
6.2. Alternative Sites...................................................................................................37
6.3. Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis ..........................................................37
SECTION 7. GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS ........................................................................................42
SECTION 8. FINDINGS REGARDING CIRCULATION........................................................................44
SECTION 9. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS....................................................................................45
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 ii
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
This statement of Findings of Fact (Findings) addresses the environmental effects associated
with the proposed Jersey Industrial Complex Project (Project), as described in the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). These Findings are made pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000 et seq.),
specifically PRC§§ 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code
of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.), specifically §§ 15091 and 15093. The Draft EIR (DEIR)
examined the full range of potential effects of construction and operation of the Project and
identified standard mitigation practices that could be employed to reduce, minimize, or avoid
those potential effects.
In accordance with, and in furtherance of the mandates contained in California Public Resources
Code Section 21002 and related case law, the Project design reflects the identification and
implementation of feasible mitigation measures to lessen identified environmental impacts, and
the FEIR presented information on the environmental effects of the Project, including effects that
are mitigated to below a level of significance.
1.1. Purpose
PRC § 21081, and CEQA Guidelines § 15091 require that the lead agency, in this case the City
of Rancho Cucamonga (City), prepare written findings for identified significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. PRC§21081(a)affirmatively
requires a lead agency make one or more of three possible findings in reference to each
significant impact. In addition, PRC § 21081(b) requires an additional finding for impacts that
include specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations wherein the lead
agency affirms that the project benefits outweigh the environmental impacts.
CEQA Guidelines § 15091 states, in part, that:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those
significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 1
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
In accordance with PRC § 21081, and CEQA Guidelines § 15093 (Statement of Overriding
Conditions [SOC]), whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance, the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of
the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the
project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." In that case, the decision-making agency may
prepare and adopt an SOC, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides:
a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If
the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support
its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of
overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice
of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to,
findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
The FEIR identified potentially significant effects that could result from the project. The City finds
that the inclusion of feasible mitigation measures as part of the approval of the Project will reduce
all of those effects to less-than-significant levels.
As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these Findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is
incorporated by reference and made a part of these Findings, meets the requirements of PRC
§ 21081.6, by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate
potentially significant effects of the Project.
In accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, the City adopts these Findings for the
Project. Pursuant to PRC§21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that these Findings reflect the City's
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 2
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
independent judgment as the lead agency for the Project (see Findings Section 1.4, CEQA
Findings of Independent Judgment, Review and Analysis).
1.2. Records of Proceedings
For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings for the Project includes
all data and materials outlined in PRC § 21167.6(e), along with other Project-relevant information
contained within the City's files. Specifically, the record of proceedings for the City's decision on
the Project includes the following documents, all of which are incorporated by reference and are
relied on in supporting these Findings:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the Project.
• All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public
during the public review comment period on the NOP.
• The DEIR for the Project and all technical appendices, technical memoranda and
documents relied upon or incorporated by reference.
• All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public
during the public review comment period on the DEIR and the City's responses to those
comments, including related referenced technical materials and DEIR errata.
• The FEIR for the Project.
• The MMRP for the Project.
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating
to the Project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City's
compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City's action on the
Project.
• All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the DEIR.
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and
public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project.
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions,
public meetings, and public hearings.
• All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses,
and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions.
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and
local laws and regulations.
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above, and
any other materials required for the record of proceedings by PRC § 21167.6(e).
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 3
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
1.3. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that, as a whole, make up the Record of Proceedings for the
City's actions related to the Project are located at the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning
Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. The City, as the
lead agency for the Project, is the custodian of the Record of Proceedings for the Project.
1.4. CEQA Findings of Independent Judgment, Review and Analysis
Under CEQA, the lead agency must (1) independently review and analyze the EIR; (2) circulate
draft documents that reflect its independent judgment; (3) as part of the certification of an EIR,
find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and (4)
submit copies of the documents to the State Clearinghouse if there is state agency involvement
or if the project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance (PRC § 21082.1[c]).
The Findings contained in this document reflect the City's conclusions, as required pursuant to
CEQA, for the Project. The City has exercised independent judgment, in accordance with PRC
§ 21082.1(c)(3), in the preparation of the EIR. The review, analysis and revision material
prepared by the Project Applicant and its consultants, and the review, analysis, and revision of
the EIR based on comments received during the public comment process.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the FEIR, as well as any and all
other information in the record, the City hereby makes these Findings pursuant to and in
accordance with PRC §§ 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6.
SECTION 2. GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS
Pursuant to PRC § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091, no public agency shall approve or
carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant
effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the
public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigates or avoid the significant effects on the environment. [referred to in these Findings
as "Finding 1"].
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. [referred to
in these Findings as "Finding 2"].
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other consideration, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report. (The concept of infeasibility also encompasses whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the Project's underlying goals and objectives,
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 4
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
and whether an alternative or mitigation measure is impractical or undesirable from a
policy standpoint. See, California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177
Cal. App. 4th 957; City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 410).
[referred to in these Findings as "Finding 3"].
The City has made one or more of the required written findings for each significant impact
associated with the Project. Those written findings, along with a presentation of facts in support
of each of the written findings, are presented below. The City certifies these findings are based
on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of
these findings, concerning the environmental issues identified and discussed.
The mitigation measures adopted as part of the Project are feasible and mitigate the
environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and possible as discussed in the findings
made below. The FEIR includes minor clarifications to the DEIR. These changes made to the
DEIR are shown in the FEIR in response to individual comments and are shown in strakethro gh
and underline text.
Thus, it is the finding of the City that such clarifying changes as described in the FEIR, do not
present any new, significant information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review
under PRC § 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MRP for the Project has been adopted pursuant
to the requirements of PRC § 21081.6 to ensure implementation of the adopted mitigation
measures to reduce significant effects on the environment and is included in the FEIR document.
The City is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of the
proceedings upon which certification of the FEIR for the Project is based, as described above in
Section 1.3, Custodian and Location of Records.
It is the finding of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's City Council that the FEIR, as presented for
review and approval, fulfills environmental review requirements for the Project, and that the
document constitutes a complete, accurate, adequate, and good faith effort at full disclosure
under CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT
For the following significance thresholds, the City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in
the record, the proposed Project would have no impact; therefore, no mitigation is required, and
no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 5
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
3.1. Aesthetics
Significance Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings along a scenic highway?
Basis of Conclusion: There are no state or County eligible or designated state scenic highways
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest officially designated scenic highway is State
Route (SR) 2 (Angeles Crest Scenic Highway), located on the north side of the San Gabriel
Mountains and approximately 12 miles from the northern City boundary. No scenic resources are
located within or adjacent to the project site. Given the distance between the Project Site and the
nearest officially designated state scenic highways, the proposed Project would not substantially
damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would be
anticipated.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-4.
3.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Significance Threshold: Would the project 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?
Basis of Conclusion: According to the California Department of Conservation's California
Important Farmland Finder, the proposed Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance. The site is
classified as"Urban and Built-Up Land" by the Farmland Finder. The Project site does not contain
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact to these
resources would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-5 through 5-6.
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is zoned MI/HI and designated Heavy Industrial in the
General Plan Update (2010). The Heavy Industrial designation permits heavy manufacturing,
compounding, processing or fabrication, warehousing, storage, freight handling, and truck
services and terminals, as well as supportive service commercial uses. This district is intended
for Industrial use. Additionally, the Project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. As a
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 6
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
result, no impacts related to conflicts with agricultural zoning or a Williamson act contract would
occur. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-6.
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land(as defined in PRC Section 12220(g))
or timberland(as defined in PRC Section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
Basis of Conclusion: Neither the Project site nor surrounding areas are zoned for forest use or
timber production. The site has not been used for timber production or commercial agriculture.
The Project would not conflict with any zoning designations designed to preserve timber or
agricultural resources. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-6.
Significance Threshold. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Basis of Conclusion: There is no forest land on or in the vicinity of the proposed Project site.
The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-6.
Significance Threshold. Would the project involve other changes in the existing
environment that, due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to
nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Basis of Conclusion: There is no farmland or forest land located within or near the proposed
Project site. The Project would not involve any changes that could result in the loss or conversion
of farmland or forest land to other uses. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-6.
3.3. Biological Resources
Significance Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 7
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not support riparian habitat; United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional areas; wetlands; or, sensitive natural
communities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-7.
Significance Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not support riparian habitat; non-wetland
jurisdictional resources; wetlands; or, sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-7.
Significance Threshold: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages,
and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural
areas) within or connecting the Project site to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages. No
impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-7.
Significance Threshold. Would the project conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not contain any trees that would qualify as Heritage
Trees under the City's Municipal Code and no street trees would be removed during site
preparation. Further, there are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community
Conservation Plans that are applicable to the area. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-8.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 8
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Significance Threshold: Impact- Would the project conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or any other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan;
Natural Communities Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 5-8.
3.4. Cultural Resources
Significance Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site has not been developed; thus, there are no structures or
other features that may be determined a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5. No recorded resources are located within the area of potential effect (APE). The
Project site is not part of a historic district nor would historic resources be affected by the Project.
No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 4-53.
3.5. Energy
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 5-9.
3.6. Geology and Soils
Significance Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death from landslides?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not exhibit sloped conditions, adverse geologic
conditions, or weak earth materials and is not at risk for seismic induced landslides. The Project
would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No impact would occur.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 9
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-9.
Significance Threshold: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the UBC (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
Basis of Conclusion: As stated in the General Plan EIR, Section 4.7, Geology/Soils, expansive
soils are soils with a significant amount of clay particles that have the ability to shrink or swell
with water. When these soils swell, they exert pressure on building foundations and may cause
damage. Soils in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its sphere of influence have relatively low
amounts of clay and no soil expansion hazards are present No impact would occur related to
expansive soils.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-64.
Significance Threshold: Would the project have soils that are incapable of supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Basis of Conclusion: No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems will be constructed as
part of the proposed Project and no impacts will occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-9.
3.7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significance Threshold: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Basis of Conclusion: Slag fill material was identified on the site that was determined to be
hazardous. The site was remediated consistent with the Phase II Investigation and Remediation
Plan; however, no state or local CUPA oversight occurred. As referenced in the Site Remediation
Report (July 2020), a total of 12,364 tons of hazardous material was removed from the site and
disposed of at the La Paz County landfill, Arizona. Based on the amount of material excavated
and properly disposed of offsite, visual evidence and verification sampling of remaining soils, it
was concluded that constituents within the soil remaining on-site are below the agreed upon
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) regulatory cleanup levels.
The Project site is not on the Cortese list, nor on databases maintained by either the DTSC or
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Further, there are no Cortese listed sites
located in proximity to the Project site. The Project is not located on a site included on a list
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 10
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-10 through 5-11.
Significance Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within % mile of an existing or proposed school?
Basis of Conclusion: No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of
the Project site. The nearest school to the Project site is the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School
which is located at 10022 Feron Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga approximately 2.6 miles west
of the site. Cucamonga Elementary School is located at 8677 Archibald Avenue approximately
2.9 miles west of the site. Accordingly, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-10.
Significance Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
Basis of Conclusion: Ontario International Airport is located approximately 3.8 miles southwest
of the Project site. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area and Airport
Land Use Compatibility Zone E as shown in the Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ALUCP) Map 2-. There are no specific land use constraints within Zone E that would apply to
the Project. The proposed Project would not result in a safety concern for people residing in
proximity to Ontario International Airport. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-10.
Significance Threshold: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The proposed Project would not obstruct access to the Project vicinity
through road closures or other project actions that could impact evacuation routes or otherwise
impair evacuation during emergencies. Access to areas surrounding the site via Milliken Avenue
and Jersey Boulevard would be maintained. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-10.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 11
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Significance Threshold: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not located within a designated fire hazard area or a
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within a Local Responsibility Area. The Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildland fires. No impact would
occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-10.
3.8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Significance Threshold: Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone, is not within a tsunami
zone, and is not within proximity to an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water that is capable
of producing seiches. Therefore, there would be no impact related to risk of release of pollutants
due to inundation of the Project site from a flood, tsunami or seiche.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-101.
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is within the Santa Ana River Basin and the Project would
not conflict with the Santa Ana Basin Plan. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the
City of Rancho Cucamonga MS4 Permit. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-101 through 4-102.
3.9. Land Use and Planning
Significance Threshold: Would the project physically divide an established
community?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is surrounded by warehouse/industrial uses to the north,
east and west and Fire Station#174 and training facility to the south. The proposed Project would
utilize the existing road network and not result in the construction of improvements that would
physically divide an existing community or otherwise impact circulation on public roads
surrounding the site. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-12.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 12
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Significance Threshold: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact
due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Basis of Conclusion: Implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with any local
or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect. The Project is consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
(2010) and Zoning Code. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-12 through 5-13.
3.10. Mineral Resources
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not part of an area known to have significant local
sand and gravel resources. As stated in the General Plan EIR, the mineral resources are primarily
sand and gravel deposits within the alluvial fans in and near Lytle Creek(San Sevaine Wash and
Etiwanda Creek), San Antonio Creek, Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek, and Day Creek. These
alluvial fans generally start at the canyons at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, north of the
City. While the northern portion of these fans remain undeveloped, the creeks have been
channelized in and near the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in developed areas along creeks.
Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State of California. No
impact would result.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-13.
Significance Threshold. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not located in an area of known sand and gravel
deposits and is not identified in the General Plan as a locally-important mineral resource recovery
site. Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State of California. No
impact would result.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-13.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 13
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
3.11. Noise
Significance Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 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?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is located approximately 3.8 miles northwest of Ontario
International Airport. There are no private airstrips in proximity to the site. The proposed Project
is located within the Airport Influence Area and Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone E as shown
in the Ontario ALUCP Map 2-1. No airport noise limits are associated with Zone E. No impact
would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 5-14.
3.12. Population and Housing
Significance Threshold: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly(e.g., by proposing new
homes and business) or indirectly(e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not construct housing, nor would it extend roads or
other infrastructure into previously unserved areas. Thus, the Project would not directly or
indirectly induce population growth. No impact related to unplanned population growth would
result from Project implementation.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 5-14.
Significance Threshold. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction of the proposed Project would not require the removal of
existing housing; and thus, would not result in the displacement of people or require the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 5-14.
3.13. Public Services
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 14
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
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
including other public facilities?
v.) Other Public Facilities:
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not increase the population of Rancho Cucamonga or
otherwise affect demand for library services. No new or expanded library services would be
required. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-16.
3.14. Recreation
Significance Threshold: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project does not propose any uses that would directly generate a
population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities. The Project would not add additional residences or business that would
increase demand for any park or other recreational facility in the area. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-16 through 5-17.
Significance Threshold: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Basis of Conclusion: No additional park land would be required to accommodate the Project,
nor would staff contribute to an exceedance of the capacity of existing park capacity. The
payment of impact fees by the Project applicant, if required, would contribute to funding available
for improvements to existing park resources. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-17.
3.15. Transportation/Traffic
Significance Threshold: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 15
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Basis of Conclusion: Road improvements would be limited to the driveways on the south and
east side of the Project site and would be constructed consistent with Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code. The Project would not increase hazards caused by a design feature or
incompatible use. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-17.
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not alter emergency access routes. The road
improvements would be constructed consistent with Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to
ensure safe truck, vendor/employee and emergency vehicle access. The Project would not
impair or otherwise adversely affect emergency vehicle circulation or access to the site or other
properties in the area. No impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-17.
3.16. Utilities and Service Systems
Significance Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction and operation associated with implementation the Project
would be conducted in compliance with applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste.
No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-20.
3.17. Wildfire
Significance Threshold: Would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone,
and is surrounded by development, with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. As such, no
impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-21.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 16
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Significance Threshold: Would the project 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?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site and surrounding area is relatively flat and heavily
urbanized. Additionally, the Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. If the area
were to burn, fires are anticipated to be isolated and not expected to result in substantive risk
from landslide or mudflows caused by run-off, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. No
impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-22.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (NO
MITIGATION REQUIRED)
The City agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to impacts identified as
"less than significant impact" and finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as
discussed below, the following impacts associated with the Project are not significant or are less
than significant, and do not require mitigation, as described in the Final EIR. Under CEQA, no
mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3); 15091.) Note that impacts are
presented below in summary form. For a full description of impacts, see the appropriate text in
the EIR, which the Council hereby incorporates by reference into these Findings.
4.1. Aesthetics
Significance Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site does not contain scenic resource and would be
consistent with the overall context of the surrounding area. The Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-2 through 5-4.
Significance Threshold. Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is within an urbanized area of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. As such, the analysis for this threshold is based on the review of the potential for
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 17
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
the Project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The
Project would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality, including Rancho Cucamonga Development Code standards and General Plan polices.
A less than significant impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-4 through 5-5.
Significance Threshold. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is located in an urban area, which includes existing
sources of light and glare. The Project would add new lighting to the site. All outdoor street
lighting and on-site security lighting and landscape lighting would be designed to City of Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code standards. Impacts would be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-5.
4.2. Air Quality
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project area is within the South Coast Air Basin and therefore is
under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The
SCAQMD has two criteria used to determine consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP). The Project would complywith both of the AQMP's criteria. Therefore,the Project would
be compliant with the applicable AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-19 through 4-20.
Significance Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors (e.g., residents,
workers or school children) to substantial pollutant concentrations, including localized criteria
pollutant emissions during construction and operation, mobile source and construction-related
diesel particulate matter(DPM) emissions, or carbon monoxide (CO) "Hot Spots". Impacts would
be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-24 through 4-26.
Significance Threshold: Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 18
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Basis of Conclusion: The proposed Project would generate odors from construction (i.e., diesel
exhaust, asphalt). Construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD impact thresholds and
would be short-term in duration. Thus, short-term odors are not expected to be significant.
Operation of the warehouse facility would not cause odors. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 4-26.
4.3. Energy
Significance Threshold. Would the project result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would adhere to the state-mandated provisions of California
Energy Code Title 24. The Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during Project construction or
operation. Impacts would be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER pages 5-8 through 5-9.
4.4. Geology and Soils
Significance Threshold. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent A/quist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the state geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault or
strong seismic ground shaking?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is not in a fault hazard area; nor is the Project site within
a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Project site is within a seismically active
region. As such, the Project's proposed structures may be subject to moderate to large seismic
events, resulting in strong seismic ground shaking. The Project would be required to comply with
the California Building Code (CBC) and would be required to incorporate the recommendations
from the Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that people and/or structures would not
be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 4-62.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 19
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Significance Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death from seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Basis of Conclusion: Groundwater was not encountered during site borings and groundwater
within the Project area is likely of sufficient depth that liquefaction during a seismic event is
unlikely. The potential for encountering groundwater and related impacts associated with
liquefaction at the Project site is considered low. Impacts would be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-62 through 4-63.
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is flat, limiting erosion potential. Construction activities
would be conducted in compliance regulations pertaining to protection of water quality. With
adherence to existing regulations and requirements, there would be a less than significant impact
related to erosion during construction and operation.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-63 through 4-64.
Significance Threshold: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would be required to incorporate the recommendations from
the Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that these hazards would be reduced with
proper site preparation. No groundwater was encountered during site borings and groundwater
within the Project area is likely of sufficient depth that liquefaction during a seismic event is
unlikely. Further, the site has dense subsurface soil conditions. Thus, potential impacts related
to land subsidence or lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-64.
Significance Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Basis of Conclusion: The majority of the City is underlain by bedrock consisting of surficial
sedimentary or metamorphic rocks that are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils;
however, there may be sedimentary deposits at a greater depth. The Geotechnical Report states
that soils below the site to a depth of 16 feet bgs are comprised of native soil containing alluvial
sand, fine to course-grained, silty, gravelly, dry to damp material. The Project would not excavate
more than approximately four feet below bgs for the building footings, utilities and related
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 20
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
improvements. The surficial sediment at depths that would be encountered by project
excavations are unlikely to contain vertebrate fossils. No paleontological resources were
discovered during remediation activities nor are these resources known to occur in the area,
particularly at depths that would be excavated by the Project. Excavation depths would be limited
to that needed to grade the site and construct building foundations and subsurface utilities and
improvements. Impacts would be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-9 through 5-10.
4.5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Threshold. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction and operation of the Project, would not exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)/City screening threshold for greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and would not generate a net increase in GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may significantly impact the environment. GHG emissions impacts would be less
than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-75.
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including Senate Bill (SB) 32 and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan, Connect SoCal, and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan. This impact is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-76 through 4-81.
4.6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significance Threshold. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction and operation of the Project would involve handling of
hazardous materials in limited quantities and typical to developed environments. Based on the
site investigation and remediation work performed to date, encountering hazardous materials
during construction is not anticipated. Through compliance with existing applicable regulations,
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 21
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-87 through 4-88.
Significance Threshold. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would comply with existing applicable regulations and would
not increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. The accidental release of hazardous materials on-site is unlikely
because of the regulations in place to avoid such an event. Impacts are anticipated to be less
than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER pages 4-88 through 4-89.
4.7. Hydrology and Water Quality
Significance Threshold. Would the project violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
Basis of Conclusion: Proposed drainage patterns would maintain the existing drainage pattern
and the Project would be designed to convey surface flows into an underground system where it
would be treated prior to percolation into subsurface soils. The Project would not substantially
degrade water quality or otherwise violate discharge standards. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 4-98.
Significance Threshold. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site is currently pervious; and post-construction, the majority
of the site would be impervious. However, all stormwater would be retained in an underground
storage infiltration system and allowed to percolate into the soil. The Project would change how
the site percolates water; however, overall recharge volumes within the basin would not change
as a result of the Project. Thus, the Project would not directly interfere with groundwater recharge
or contribute to depletion groundwater. A less than significant impact would occur.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 22
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 4-99.
Significance Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner 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 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 flood flows?
Basis of Conclusion: With implementation of the stormwater system as designed, no off-site
erosion or siltation would occur. The Project site is not located within a 100-year mapped flood
zone nor is it located in proximity to drainage features that would cause or contribute to flooding
conditions. Thus, the Project would not expose people or structures to flood hazard from severe
storm events. The Project would not 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off- site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on-or off-site, 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 impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-99 through 4-101.
4.8. Noise
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in 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?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 23
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies. Noise levels would be below the thresholds of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
for construction and operations. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-109 through 4-113.
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction or operation. This impact is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-113 through 4-114.
4.9. Public Services
Significance Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities or a 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: Fire
Protection, Police Protection, Schools and Parks:
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not involve new residential uses or an increase in the
City's population, and there is an existing demand for public services at the Project site
associated with the existing development on-site. The Project would be developed in adherence
to existing regulations relative to fire protection and required development impact fees would be
paid. The Project would not increase the population of Rancho Cucamonga or otherwise affect
demand for park facilities. The Project would not remove park or recreational facilities that would
require replacement elsewhere. The Project would not require the construction of new or
alteration of existing public service facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Project
area, and no physical environmental impacts would result. Impacts to public services would be
less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-14 through 5-16.
4.10. Transportation/Traffic
Significance Threshold: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 24
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not be required to make road improvements; however,
frontage and access improvements would be required per the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This
would improve overall pedestrian circulation and safety within the area. The Project would not
conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. This impact is less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-122 through 4-123.
Significance Threshold Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project's VMT impact would be considered less than significant based
on the City's TPA Screening VMT Area screening threshold. The Project site is located within a
TPA is considered less than significant due to meeting each of the criteria for projects within
TPAs. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b). This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-123 through 4-125.
4.11. Utilities and Service Systems
Significance Threshold: Would the project require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would create additional demand on existing facilities;
however, demand would be met with existing infrastructure. No additional water or wastewater
treatment facilities would be required to meet Project demand. No additional electrical or
telecommunication systems would need to be constructed to meet Project demand. All waste
material would be collected and disposed of in nearby landfills within permitted capacity. No
additional facilities would need to be constructed to accommodate Project demand. A less than
significant impact would occur.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 5-17 through 5-19.
Significance Threshold: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Basis of Conclusion: Development allowed by the Project would require water supplies from
the CVWD. Project demand would be within the demand projections provided in the CVWD
Urban Water Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 25
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER pages 5-19.
Significance Threshold. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that 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?
Basis of Conclusion: The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA)wastewater treatment facilities
have sufficient capacity to serve the Project and existing commitments. This impact would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER pages 5-19 through 5-20.
Significance Threshold. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project's construction and operational refuse would be disposed of
at the Mid Valley Landfill. Construction and operational activities would comply with applicable
regulations addressing solid waste management. The Project would not 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. This impact would be less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER page 5-20.
Significance Threshold. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
Basis of Conclusion: Construction and operation associated with implementation the Project
would be conducted in compliance with applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste.
No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DER pages 5-20 through 5-21.
4.12. Wildfire
Significance Threshold. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project would not alter emergency access routes. Emergency vehicle
access to the site would be provided via Milliken Avenue or Jersey Boulevard. The Project would
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 26
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
not adversely impact traffic operations on Milliken Avenue or Jersey Boulevard and would not
impact use of either street as an evacuation route. A less than significant impact would occur
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-21.
Significance Threshold: Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project is surrounded by warehouse and industrial uses. prevailing
wind is from the west and the Project is located in a flat area. Vegetation in the area is sparse
and there are no areas of native habitat that could burn in the event a wildfire occurs. The Project
site is not expected to be exposed to high-risks resulting from surrounding slopes or prevailing
winds. Impacts would be less than significant.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR page 5-21.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH
MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Pursuant to PRC § 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1), based on substantial
evidence, the City finds that for each of the impacts discussed below the Project's potentially
significant impacts have been avoided, offset or reduced to less than significant levels in
consideration of existing regulatory plans and programs (described in the DEIR Section 4 for
each applicable impact topic), and EIR mitigation measures (as listed in Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program [MMRP], and summarized below).
5.1. Air Quality
Impact 4.1-2: Would the project violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Basis for Conclusion: The air quality plan applicable to the Project is the SCAQMD's Final 2016
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Project's net operational emissions would not exceed
the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional or local
significance thresholds or (LST), and the Project's construction and operational characteristics
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 27
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.Additionally, during operation, the Project would
not result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and
impacts would therefore be less than significant.
In terms of project-related construction emissions, the DEIR assumed that graded soils would be
balanced on the Project site and that no soil import or export would be required. The Project would
be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce fugitive dust
and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located within the South Coast Air
Basin. Therefore, the following conditions, which are conditioned as part of the Project to reduce
fugitive dust in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, were included in air quality model
(CaIEEMod)for site preparation and grading phases of construction.
1. Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors should minimize the area
disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
2. Soil Treatment. Construction contractors should treat all graded and excavated material,
exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site
roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and/or
roll compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, and at least
twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. The analysis
provided herein assumes watering would occur by contractor two times daily as required
per SCAQMD Rule 403.
3. Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated
inactive areas of the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization
methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control
materials, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four
days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall
be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with
environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
4. No Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors should stop all clearing,
grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (20 miles
per hour or greater, as measured continuously over a one-hour period).
5. Street Sweeping. Construction contractors should sweep all on-site driveways and
adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible
soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 28
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Therefore, the Project's regional air quality impacts(including impacts related to criteria pollutants
and violations of air quality standards) would be less than significant. Nonetheless, prior to
mitigation the Project's construction-related emissions could exceed the SCAQMD regional
thresholds for ROG. Thus, Project-related construction activities have the potential to 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 2016 AQMP, resulting in a potentially significant impact. With the
implementation of MM AQ-1, which includes additional construction-related mitigation
requirements to ensure that the architectural coating phase and the building phase would overlap
for approximately 44 total workdays to avoid exceeding the daily ROG standard.
Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.1,Air Quality of the DEIR,
which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are
made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially
significant impacts to less than significant.
MM AQ-1 Condition Project to overlap architectural coating phase with the building phase
by approximately 44 total workdays to avoid exceeding the daily ROG standard. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga which demonstrates that the architectural coating phase will overlap with
the building phase by a minimum of 44 days.
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to
below a level of significance.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-20 through 4-26.
5.2. Biological Resources
Impact 4.2-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project site consists of undeveloped land that has been impacted by
decades of anthropogenic disturbances. No special-status species were observed on-site during
the habitat assessment. The Project site and surrounding areas provide limited foraging and
nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal birds and migrating songbirds. While it is unknown
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 29
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
whether nesting would occur or what species would nest on-site, if construction activities occur
between February 1 through August 31 st, nesting and migratory bird species covered by the
MBTA could be significantly affected by construction activities. Project construction would impact
nesting and migratory bird species covered by the MBTA. Implementation of MM BIO-1, which
requires pre-construction surveys, would reduce impacts to nesting and migratory birds to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2, Biological Resources of
the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are
feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will
reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
MM B10-1 Pursuant to the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, removal of any trees, shrubs,
or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The
nesting season extends from February 1 through August 31 but can vary slightly from year to
year based upon seasonal weather conditions. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal
cannot occur outside of the nesting season, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds,
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the direction of the Project Applicant and City of
Rancho Cucamonga within three (3)days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure
that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.
If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction
activities can commence thereafter provided activities are able to maintain a 300-foot buffer
around the active nest. For raptors and special-status species, this buffer will be expanded to
500 feet.A biological monitor shall be present during construction activities within the buffer area.
to delineate the boundaries of the buffers and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting
behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity.
If the biologist determines that bird breeding activity is being disrupted, the Project Applicant shall
stop work, notify the City and coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW to agree upon an
avoidance/minimization approach. Upon agreement of the avoidance/ minimization approach,
work may resume subject to the revisions and continued monitoring.
If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the clearance survey, in conformance with the
California Staff Report's protocols, no ground-disturbing activities will be permitted within 656
feet of an occupied burrow during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), unless
otherwise authorized by CDFW.
Once the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged and left the nest of any birds
within the buffer area(s), or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal
construction activities can occur.
Reporting. If no active nests are found during the pre-construction clearance survey, the Project
Applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga a brief letter report prepared by the
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 30
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
biologist that documents the negative survey results. The letter report shall also indicate that no
impacts to active avian nests will occur.
If active nests were found, the Project Applicant shall submit a final bird survey monitoring report
prepared by the Project biologist to the City, the USFWS and CDFW. The report shall include
documentation of all bird surveys, monitoring activities, coordination efforts with the wildlife
agencies, as-built construction drawings with an overlay of any active nests in the survey areas,
photographs of habitat areas during pre-construction and postconstruction conditions, and other
relevant summary information documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and that
general compliance was achieved for the avoidance/minimization provisions and the biological
monitoring program required by the wildlife agencies.
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to
below a level of significance.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-37 through 4-39.
5.3. Cultural Resources
Impact 4.3-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Basis of Conclusion: The Project has the potential to encounter subsurface archaeological
resources during construction resulting in a potentially significant impact to previously
unrecorded subsurface cultural resources prior to mitigation. Implementation of MM CUL-1 and
MM CUL-2, which identify actions to be taken during construction to protect unknown resources,
would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MM CUL-1 requires a qualified
archaeologist be retained to evaluate any cultural resources that are discovered during project
activities. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered and avoidance cannot be
ensured, MM CUL-2 requires the qualified archaeologist to develop a Monitoring and Treatment
Plan.
Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources of
the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are
feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will
reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
MM CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all
work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 31
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on
the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment
period. Additionally, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources
Department shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or
historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial
assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance
and treatment. Prior to the release of the Grading Bond, a Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation
Report, which describes the results, analysis and conclusions of the cultural resource mitigation
monitoring efforts shall be submitted by the qualified archaeologist, along with the Native
American Monitor's notes and comments, to the City for review and approval.
MM CUL-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by
CEQA(as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist
shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI
for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder
of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to
below a level of significance.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-53 through 4-55.
Impact 4.3-3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Basis of Conclusion: No human remains or cemeteries were identified as a result of the SCCIC
search and pedestrian field survey. The potential for encountering human remains at the Project
site is low, however, there is a potential to encounter subsurface remains during construction.
resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. MM CUL-3 identifies actions that
should be taken if human remains are encountered. This measure would reduce impacts to a
less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources of
the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are
feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will
reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
MM CUL-3 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities
associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find)
shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 32
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project. If the human remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission,
which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant shall
complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials.
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to
below a level of significance.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-53 through 4-55.
5.4. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.10-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and
that is:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)
(ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe?
Basis of Conclusion: The combined South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) sacred land files (SLF) search, and pedestrian
archaeological field survey did not identify any existing historic resources within the proposed
Project area. Further, the Project site has been heavily disturbed by past soil remediation
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 33
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
activities. For this reason, the Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a known historic resource as defined in PRC 5020.1 (k). However, if
construction ground disturbance depths range within native soils (at least 1 foot or more bgs),
there would be a potential to impact previously unrecorded subsurface tribal cultural resources.
Implementation of MM TCR-1 through TCR-6, agreed upon during the City's consultation with
the California Native American tribes, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
TCR-1 through TCR-6 require monitoring of ground-disturbing activities, outline the parameters
for the monitoring activities, and identify actions that should be taken if tribal cultural resources
or Native American human remains are encountered. These measures further ensure the proper
identification and subsequent treatment of any tribal cultural resources and/or Native American
human remains that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the
development of the Project. These measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant
impact.
Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.10, Tribal Cultural
Resources of the DEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation
Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation
measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
MM TCR-1 The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources
Department shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, of any pre-contact
and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation and be provided
information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to
significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as
amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the
qualified archaeologist in coordination with SMBMI and submitted to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga for review and approval. The qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the Project
Applicant to implement all mitigation measures related to archaeological and historical resources.
All subsequent finds shall be subject to the Monitoring and Treatment Plan. This Plan shall
include tribal contact information, protocol to following should cultural resources be discovered,
curation requirements and allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the
remainder of the Project's ground disturbing activities, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor
on-site.
MM TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project
(isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the
applicant and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for dissemination to SMBMI. The City of Rancho
Cucamonga and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI until all ground disturbing
activities have been completed.
MM TCR-3 The Project Applicant shall be required to retain, prior to the commencement of
construction, and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both
approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 34
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
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
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation 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 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.
MM TCR-4 Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed by the qualified archaeologist
and/or Native American monitor. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction
activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved
by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in
origin, the Gabrieleno 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 Section 15064.5 [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.
MM TCR-5 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.
MM TCR-6 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
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 35
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Findings 1.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to
below a level of significance.
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to DEIR pages 4-130 through 4-133.
SECTION 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives (14 CCR 15126.6[a]). The CEQA Guidelines direct that
the selection of alternatives be governed by "a rule of reason" (14 CCR 15126.6[a], [f]). As
defined by the CEQA Guidelines, "The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a
`rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR needs to examine in
detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project" (14 CCR 15126.6[f]). The Project objectives are set forth in DEIR
Section 6.2.
6.1. Alternatives Considered and Rejected
The CEQA Guidelines provide that this EIR should "identify any alternatives that were considered
by the Lead Agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain
the reasons underlying the Lead Agency's determination" (14 CCR 15126.6[c]). The following is
a discussion of the proposed project alternatives developed during the scoping and planning
process and the reasons they were not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR.
With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the proposed project, CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.6(t)(1) states, "Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the
feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure,
general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries . . . and
whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the
alternative site."
In determining an appropriate range of project alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, a number
of possible alternatives were initially considered and then rejected. Project alternatives were
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 36
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
rejected because they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed Project; they
would not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts; or they were
considered infeasible to construct or operate.
The following alternative has been rejected from further consideration:
6.2. Alternative Sites
In the case of the Project, an alternative site is not considered applicable or feasible, as the
Project Applicant does not own or control other undeveloped property of similar size and zoning
within the City or in the immediate area. Further, construction of a project different in scope from
the proposed Project would not meet the objectives that focus on development of warehousing
facilities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. For the above reasons, the Alternative Site
Alternative was found to be infeasible and therefore was rejected from further consideration.
6.3. Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis
The following alternatives were addressed in the DEIR:
• The No Project Alternative
• The Reduced Footprint Alternative
No Project Alternative
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(3)(b)), the No Project Alternative is
defined as the "circumstance under which the project does not proceed." Section 15126.6(e) of
the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of a No Project alternative that (1)discusses existing site
conditions at the time the NOP is prepared or the EIR is commenced, and (2) analyzes what can
reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future based on current plans if the proposed
Project were not approved. Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Project would not be
implemented and the site would remain undeveloped.
Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts
The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the No Project
Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. However,
the No Project Alternative would avoid the Project's less than significant impacts.
Findings Regarding Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, would not realize anyof
the Project's benefits resulting from the creation of employment opportunities in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside
the area for employment and improve the jobs to housing balance.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 37
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Overall Finding: The City adopts Finding 3.
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
this alternative infeasible. Although the No Project Alternative would avoid the Project's less than
significant environmental impacts, this alternative would not meet any of the Project's objectives.
Supporting Evidence: Please see DEIR Pages 6-4 through 6-5.
Reduced Footprint Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be reduced by approximately 2/3 of the overall
square footage of each component. The warehouse would be reduced to 93,389 square feet in
four separate units, 5,364 square feet of mezzanine storage, 5,364 square feet of office space
(i.e., divided into four separate spaces, one for each storage unit)and a 203-square foot electrical
room. The total building area would be 104,320 square feet. The highest point of the building
would be 42 feet above ground level. These would be the architectural parapets on the building
frontage. A total of 73 parking spaces would be provided. The warehouse building would be
oriented east/west with vehicle access to office space fronting the building from Jersey
Boulevard. Truck access to the loading docks located at the rear of the building would be
provided from Milliken Avenue. The truck access driveway would be gated with security cameras
and monitored to ensure no unauthorized entrance to the loading area. The Reduced Footprint
Alternative would provide four warehouse storage units, each with three truck loading docks (i.e.,
12 total docks). Water/sewer and other utilities(i.e., electrical, communication)would be provided
via existing infrastructure located on-site or within the adjacent Milliken Avenue and Jersey
Boulevard corridors. All other features of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be similar to
the proposed Project.
Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts
The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the Reduced
Footprint Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact.
Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels
considered less than significant for the following environmental resources: biological resources
(due to potential presence of Cooper's Hawk, California horned lark, burrowing owl and other
nesting bird species), cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter previously unrecorded
subsurface cultural resources), and tribal cultural resources (due to the potential to encounter
previously unknown tribal cultural resources). These potentially significant impacts are
associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project.
Both the Project and the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be required to comply with
applicable regulations and would also implement the same mitigation measures required for the
Project. The Reduced Project Alternative would disturb the same area as the proposed Project;
however, the overall building footprint would be smaller. This would reduce the number of
vehicles and trucks accessing the Project site daily. However, while the degree of impact would
be incrementally less than the proposed Project for some issue areas, the impact determination
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 38
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
under the proposed Project would be similar to the proposed Project for all topical areas
addressed in the Draft EIR.
Findings Regarding Project Objectives
The discussion below addresses the ability of the Reduced Footprint Alternative to attain the
Project objectives.
4. Ensure that development of the Project site is accomplished consistent with
applicable goals and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as set forth in
the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would
disturb the same area as the proposed Project; however the overall building footprint
would be smaller and would not develop the site at density envisioned in the Rancho
Cucamonga General Plan. Therefore, while the Reduced Footprint Alternative meets
the intent of this Project objective, it does not meet it to the same extent as the Project.
5. Develop a vacant and underutilized Project site. The Reduced Footprint Alternative
would develop industrial/warehouse use on the Project site; however it would not
maximize development of the underutilized Project site. While the Reduced Footprint
Alternative meets the intent of this Project objective, it does not meet it to the same
extent as the Project.
6. Contribute to the warehousing resources in the City of Rancho Cucamonga by
constructing an operating a facility this designed consistent with contemporary
industry standards for operational design criteria, can accommodate a wide
variety of users and are economically competitive with similar industrial
buildings in the local area and region. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would
develop industrial/warehouse use on the Project site, thereby meeting the intent of the
Project objective. However, because a smaller warehouse building would be
constructed, compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative
does not meet this objective to the same extent as the Project.
7. Create employment opportunities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce
the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for
employment and improve the jobs to housing balance. The Reduced Footprint
Alternative would generate more employment opportunities than what would be
generated by a vacant lot; however, it would not achieve this objective to the same
extent as the Project.
8. To develop a project with an architectural design and operational characteristics
that complement other existing buildings in the immediate vicinity and minimize
conflicts with other nearby land uses. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would not
conflict with existing architecture or the operations of nearby uses and would achieve
this objective.
9. To maximize industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to an already-
established industrial area, designated truck routes, and the State highway
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 39
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
system in order to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways, and
avoid locating industrial warehouse buildings in close proximity to residential
uses. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop a smaller warehouse facility,
compared to the proposed Project and would not maximize the amount of available
industrial warehouse space, and therefore, would not meet this Project objective.
10. To develop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including
roads and utilities to be used as part of the Southern California supply chain
and goods movement network. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop
industrial/warehouse use on the Project site that would utilize available infrastructure
used as part of the Southern California supply chain and goods movement network.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would meet the intent of this objective, but not to
the same extent as the Project relative to supporting goods movement in Southern
California.
Overall Finding: The City adopts Finding 3.
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
this alternative infeasible. Although the No Project Alternative would avoid the Project's less than
significant environmental impacts, this alternative would not meet any of the Project's objectives.
Supporting Evidence: Please see DEIR Pages 6-6 through 6-8.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior
alternative be designated and states that if the environmentally superior Alternative is the No
Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the
other alternatives. Based on the summary of information presented in Section 6 of the DEIR, the
environmentally superior Alternative is The No Project Alternative. Because the No Project
Alternative would leave the Project site essentially unchanged and would not have the
operational effects that would be associated with any of the alternatives, this Alternative has
fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project or any of the other alternatives.
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the "No Project" alternative is
found to be environmentally superior, "the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives." Aside from the No Project Alternative, Alternative 2:
Reduced Footprint Alternative would have the least environmental impacts because it would
develop less of the Project area, result in a reduction of vehicle trips and would incrementally
reduce impacts to resource areas.
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. As discussed above,
the No Project/No Action Alternative, in which the proposed Project is not implemented, would
result in no change from current conditions. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA
Guidelines states that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative,
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 40
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives.
Additional CEQA Considerations
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts (DEIR Section 5.2)
The potentially adverse effects of the proposed Project are discussed in Sections 4.1 through
4.10 of DEIR. Mitigation measures have been recommended that would avoid, reduce or
minimize impacts. All the potential impacts associated with the proposed Project would be either
less than significant or mitigated to less than significant. The proposed Project would not result
in any significant unavoidable impacts.
Irreversible Environmental Changes (DEIR Section 5.3)
Both construction and operation of the proposed Project would lead to the consumption of limited,
slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources, committing such resources to uses that future
generations would be unable to reverse. The new development would require the commitment
of resources that include: (1) building materials; (2)fuel and operational materials/resources; and
(3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the new warehouse.
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code regulates the amount of energy consumed by new
development. Nevertheless, the consumption of such resources would represent a long-term
commitment of those resources. The commitment of resources required for the construction and
operation of the proposed Project would limit the availability of such resources for future
generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed Project. However, continued use of
such resources is consistent with the planned changes on the proposed Project site and within
the general vicinity.
Growth Inducing Impacts (DEIR Section 5.4)
The proposed Project would not directly induce growth as it does not involve residential
development. The proposed Project site has been designated for industrial/warehousing uses as
identified in the City's adopted General Plan. In addition, the proposed Project would not remove
obstacles to regional growth and related development.
The Project will generate approximately 111 new jobs. Of the total, approximately 86 percent, or
95 jobs, will be filled by employees residing outside the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
remaining 16 jobs will be filled by existing city residents. The addition of 111 new jobs would
represent a 0.12 percent increase in total employment. The proposed Project may result in
negligible population growth; however, the area is primarily built out. Any new residents would
be expected to occupy existing housing units or those in the planning stage. Any new residents
would not represent unplanned population growth in the community or result in economic growth
that exceeds levels anticipated in plans adopted by the City. Therefore, no significant impacts
related to growth inducement would occur.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 41
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
Although the proposed Project site is currently undeveloped, the surrounding area is fully
developed with urban land uses (i.e., warehousing and light industrial). The Project would include
connections to existing utilities and installation of on-site stormwater management
improvements. Utilities and streets would not need to be extended to the Project site. The
addition of 111 new jobs, would not induce growth associated with the construction of new house
or commercial infrastructure to support the jobs. No significant impacts related to direct growth
inducement would occur.
SECTION 7. GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS
The City hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing statements are true and correct;
2. The City is the "Lead Agency" for the Project evaluated in the CEQA Documents and
independently reviewed and analyzed in the DEIR and FEIR for the Project;
3. The Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was circulated for public review. It requested
that responsible agencies respond as to the scope and content of the environmental
information germane to that agency's specific responsibilities;
4. The public review period for the DEIR was for 30 days between July 2,2021 and
August 3, 2021. The DEIR and appendices were available for public review during that
time. A Notice of Completion and copies of the DEIR were sent to the State
Clearinghouse, and notices of availability of the DEIR were published by the City. The
DEIR was available for review on the City's website. Physical copies of the
environmental documents are available at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department.
5. The CEQA Documents were completed in compliance with CEQA;
6. The CEQA Documents reflect the City's independent judgment;
7. The City evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who
reviewed the DEIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses
describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The FEIR
provided adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. The City
reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that
neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant
new information to the DEIR regarding adverse environmental impacts. The City has
based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received
up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts
identified and analyzed in the FEIR.
8. The City finds that the CEQA Documents, as amended, provide objective information
to assist the decision-makers and the public at large in their consideration of the
environmental consequences of the Project. The public review period provided all
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 42
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the
opportunity to submit all comments made during the public review period;
9. The CEQA Documents evaluated the following impacts: (1) air quality; (2) biological
resources; (3)cultural resources; (4)geology and soils; (5)greenhouse gas emissions;
(6) hazards and hazardous materials; (7) hydrology and water quality; (8) noise; (9)
transportation; and (10) tribal cultural resources. Additionally, the CEQA Documents
considered, in separate sections, any potential significant irreversible environmental
changes and growth-inducing impacts of the Project, as well as effects found not to be
significant and a reasonable range of project alternatives. All of the significant
environmental impacts of the Project were identified in the CEQA Documents;
10. The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Documents
and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the Project.
The MMRP provides the steps necessary to ensure that the mitigation measures are
fully enforceable;
11. The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of
mitigation; the City's Community Development Director will serve as the MMRP
Coordinator;
12. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment,
and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has
complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2;
13. The impacts of the Project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of
certification of the CEQA Documents;
14. The City made no decisions related to approval of the Project prior to the initial
recommendation of certification of the CEQA Documents. The City also did not commit
to a definite course of action with respect to the Project prior to the initial consideration
of the CEQA Documents.
15. Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the CEQA Documents are
and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Department, the custodian of record for such documents or
other materials;
16. The responses to the comments on the DEIR, which are contained in the FEIR, clarify
and amplify the analysis in the DEIR;
17. Having reviewed the information contained in the CEQA Documents and in the
administrative record, the City finds that there is no new significant information
regarding adverse environmental impacts of the Project in the FEIR; and
18. Having received, reviewed and considered all information and documents in the CEQA
Documents, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter,
these Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead
Agency.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 43
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
SECTION 8. FINDINGS REGARDING CIRCULATION
The City finds that the DEIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (PRC § 21092.1 and
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5). CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 requires recirculation of an EIR prior
to certification of the FEIR when "significant new information is added to the EIR after public
notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review." As described in CEQA
Guidelines § 15088.5:
New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that
deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including
a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement.
"Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing
that:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it;
4. The DEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(b) provides that "recirculation is not required where the
new information added to the EIR merely clarifies and amplifies or makes insignificant
modifications in an adequate EIR." Recirculation also is not required simply because new
information is added to the EIR — indeed, new information is oftentimes added given CEQA's
public/agency comment and response process and CEQA's post-DEIR circulation requirement
of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies. In short, recirculation is
"intended to be an exception rather than the general rule." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.
Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1132).
As such, the City makes the following Findings:
1. None of the public comments submitted to the City regarding the DEIR present any
significant new information that would require the DEIR to be recirculated for public
review.
2. No new or modified mitigation measures are proposed that would have the potential
to create new significant environmental impacts
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 44
RANCHO FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONGA
3. The DEIR adequately analyzed project alternatives and there are no feasible project
alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously
analyzed that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project.
4. The DEIR was not fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
and did not preclude meaningful public review and comment.
In this legal context, the City finds that recirculation of the DEIR prior to certification is not
required. In addition to providing responses to comments, the FEIR includes revisions to expand
upon information presented in the DEIR; explain or enhance the evidentiary basis for the DEIR's
findings; update information; and to make clarifications, amplifications, updates, or helpful
revisions to the DEIR. The FEIR's revisions, clarifications and/or updates do not result in any
new significant impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.
In sum, the FEIR demonstrates that the proposed Project would not result in any new significant
impacts or increase the severity of a significant impact, as compared to the analysis presented
in the DEIR. The changes reflected in the FEIR also do not indicate that meaningful public review
of the DEIR was precluded in the first instance. Accordingly, recirculation of the EIR is not
required as revisions to the EIR are not significant as defined in § 15088.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
SECTION 9. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these Findings conclude that the proposed mitigation measures outlined in
herein are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby
commits to implementing these measures. These Findings, in other words, are not merely
informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the
City approves the proposed Project.
The mitigation measures that are referenced herein and adopted concurrently with these
Findings will be effectuated through the process of construction and implementation of the
proposed Project.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 45
FINAL
Jersey Industrial Complex Project
Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCH No. 2021060608
Prepared for:
riwej
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Contact: Vincent Acuna
Prepared by:
Birdseye Planning Group, LLC
P.O.Box 1956, Vista, CA 92085
Contact: Ryan Birdseye
January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SECTION1. Authority.................................................................................................................1
SECTION 2. Monitoring Schedule .............................................................................................1
SECTION 3. Support Documentation........................................................................................2
SECTION 4. Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix...............................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................3
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
This page intentionally left blank.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 ii
MMRP
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SECTION 1. Authority
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared
pursuant to§21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) (Public Resources Code
§21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) §§15091(d) and
15097, to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures
required of the Jersey Industrial Complex Project(Project), as set forth in the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file in the offices of the
CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City).
The EIR addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate,
recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental
impacts. The Program detailed in the matrix table below is designed to monitor and ensure
implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.
The City is the Lead Agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities
for implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Program. The City may assign
responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction
manager or third-party monitor. However, as the Lead Agency, the City remains responsible for
ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this Program.
In some cases, the City is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in
order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that
such permits or approvals have been obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the
mitigation measure. The City's existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement
review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures
and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.
SECTION 2. Monitoring Schedule
Prior to construction, while detailed design plans are being prepared by City staff or its agents,
City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the
Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is
underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in
the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring
reports, as appropriate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with
regulatory permit conditions and monitoringfreporting as part of the regulatory permitting process
and will likely require submittal of formal monitoring reports. Once construction has been
completed, the City will monitor the Project as specified in the mitigation measures.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 1
MMRP
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
SECTION 3. Support Documentation
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation
measures shall be maintained in the Project file with the Program and shall be made available to
the public upon request.
SECTION 4. Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas
for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring,
and the responsible implementing and monitoring agencies.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 2
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Condition project to overlap architectural coating phase with the City of Rancho Prior to issuance of Plan check
building phase by approximately 44 total workdays to avoid exceeding the Cucamonga building permits
daily ROG standard. Prior to issuance of a building permit,the Applicant
shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga which demonstrates that the architectural coating phase will
overlap with the building phase by a minimum of 44 days.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)and Fish and City of Rancho Prior to grading On-site inspection,
Game Code, removal of any trees,shrubs,or any other potential nesting Cucamonga permit and/or separate submittal
habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season.The nesting construction permit
season extends from February 1 through August 31 but can vary slightly issuance;during
from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. If ground grading,excavation
disturbance and vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting and construction
season,a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds,shall be activities, upon
conducted by a qualified biologist within three(3)days of the start of any completion of
ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed monitoring
during construction. activities,and prior
to final engineering
If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance inspection.
survey,construction activities can commence thereafter provided activities
are able to maintain a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptors
and special-status species,this buffer will be expanded to 500 feet.A
biological monitor shall be present during construction activities within the
buffer area.to delineate the boundaries of the buffers and to monitor the
active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the
construction activity.
If the biologist determines that bird breeding activity is being disrupted,the
Project Applicant shall stop work, notify the City and coordinate with the
USFWS and CDFW to agree upon an avoidance/minimization approach.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 3
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
Upon agreement of the avoidance/minimization approach,work may
resume subject to the revisions and continued monitoring.
If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the clearance survey, in
conformance with the California Staff Report's protocols, no ground-
disturbing activities will be permitted within 656 feet of an occupied burrow
during the breeding season(February 1 to August 31), unless otherwise
authorized by CDFW.
Once the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged and left
the nest of any birds within the buffer area(s),or the nest otherwise
becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities
can occur.
Reporting. If no active nests are found during the pre-construction
clearance survey,the Project Applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga a brief letter report prepared by the biologist that documents
the negative survey results.The letter report shall also indicate that no
impacts to active avian nests will occur.
If active nests were found,the Project Applicant shall submit a final bird
survey monitoring report prepared by the project biologist to the City,the
USFWS and CDFW.The report shall include documentation of all bird
surveys, monitoring activities,coordination efforts with the wildlife agencies,
as-built construction drawings with an overlay of any active nests in the
survey areas, photographs of habitat areas during pre-construction and
post-construction conditions,and other relevant summary information
documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and that general
compliance was achieved for the avoidance/minimization provisions and the
biological monitoring program required by the wildlife agencies.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 4
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project City of Rancho Prior to issuance of Plan check,
activities,all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot Cucamonga grading separate submittal
buffer)shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of permit/during
Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find.Work on the other grading and
portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this construction
assessment period.Additionally,the SMBMI Cultural Resources
Department shall be contacted,as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any
pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the
archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find,so
as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
CUL-2: If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources,as City of Rancho During grading and On-site inspection,
defined by CEQA(as amended,2015),are discovered and avoidance Cucamonga construction separate submittal
cannot be ensured,the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and
Treatment Plan,the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review
and comment,as detailed within TCR-1.The archaeologist shall monitor the
remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.
CUL-3: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any City of Rancho Prior to issuance of Plan check,
activities associated with the Project,work in the immediate vicinity(within a Cucamonga grading separate submittal
100-foot buffer of the find)shall cease and the County Coroner shall be permit/during
contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code§7050.5 and that code grading and
enforced for the duration of the Project. If the human remains are construction
determined to be prehistoric,the coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission,which will determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendant.The Most Likely Descendant shall complete the inspection of
the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 5
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1:The SMBMI Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted,as City of Rancho Prior to issuance of Plan check,
detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1,of any pre-contact and/or historic-era Cucamonga grading separate submittal
cultural resources discovered during project implementation and be permit/during
provided information regarding the nature of the find,so as to provide Tribal grading and
input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed construction
significant,as defined by CEQA(as amended,2015),a cultural resource
Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in
coordination with SMBMI,and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this
Plan.This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents
SMBMI for the remainder of the Project,should SMBMI elect to place a
monitor on-site.
TCR-2:Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of City of Rancho During grading and Separate submittal
the Project(isolate records,site records,survey reports,testing reports, Cucamonga construction
etc.)shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination
to SMBMI.The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith,consult
with SMBMI throughout the life of the Project.
TCR-3:The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate City of Rancho Prior to issuance of On-site inspection,
for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Cucamonga grading other agency
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is permit/during permit/approval
listed under the NAHC's Tribal Contact list for the area of the Project grading and
location.This list is provided by the NAHC.The monitor/consultant will only construction
be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground
disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation 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 when the Project site grading and
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 6
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
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-4: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources,cease City of Rancho During grading and On-site inspection,
construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can Cucamonga construction other agency
be assessed.All archaeological resources unearthed by project permit/approval
construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and
tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin,the
Gabrieleno 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[q). 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.
TCR-5: Preservation in place(i.e.,avoidance)is the preferred manner of City of Rancho During grading and Onsite inspection,
treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,treatment may include Cucamonga construction other agency
implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the permit/approval
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.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 7
RANCHO M M RP
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
Mitigation Measure Responsible
TCR-6: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98(d)(1) City of Rancho During grading and On-site inspection,
as an inhumation or cremation,and in any state of decomposition or Cucamonga construction other agency
skeletal completeness. Funerary objects,called associated grave goods in permit/approval
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.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Final EIR
January 2022 8
RESOLUTION NO. 22-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2019-00766, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 159,580 SQUARE-
FOOT INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A VACANT 7.39-
ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (IE)
DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF JERSEY
BOULEVARD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0229-111-60
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant, 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC, filed an application for Design Review
DRC2019-00766, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Design Review is referred to as "the application."
2. On February 9, 2022, 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 February 9, 2022, 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 an approximately 7.39-acre rectangular piece of land within
the Industrial Employment (IE) District, located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and
Milliken Avenue; and
C. The land use, General Plan Designation, and Zoning Designation for the subject
property and surrounding area is shown on the table below; and
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment
(IE) District
North Industrial/Warehouse Neo Industrial Employment Neo Industrial (NI)
Buildings District
Exhibit J
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-02
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766— 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 2
South Fire Station and Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment
Training Center (IE) District
East Industrial/Warehouse Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment
Building (IE) District
West Industrial/Warehouse Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment
Building (IE) District
d. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 159,580 square-foot
warehouse/distribution building and ancillary on-site improvements; and
e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building
height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, parking; and
f. The project complies with the landscaping requirements as prescribed in the
Development Code; 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 project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The site is
located within land designated as Neo Industrial Employment, which permits primarily light
industrial and low impact uses such as incubator spaces and small warehouses that are context
sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. The project consists of a 159,580 square-foot
warehouse/distribution building surrounded by existing industrial uses. All site improvements,
including parking and landscaped areas, are designed to be consistent with the
warehouse/distribution use and are consistent with the Industrial Employment 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 an Industrial Employment (IE) District. The proposed warehouse/distribution building for
the site is consistent with the land use intent of the Industrial Employment(IE) District. The zoning
of the adjacent sites to the property are within the Industrial Employment (IE) District and Neo
Industrial (NI) District and consist mainly of industrial buildings. The overall design of the new
building is similar in scale and intensity to neighboring lots. The height of the proposed building is
45 feet and does not exceed the maximum height allowed for other industrial buildings in the
Industrial Employment (IE) District. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the entire site at buildout is 0.5
and will be generally consistent with other industrial properties in the area.
C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code. The building is designed for warehouse/distribution operations. The building
meets all setbacks, floor area ratio, height, and landscaping requirements. The building has been
designed to meet the City's architectural standards. The project meets the minimum parking,
loading, and access requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-02
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766— 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 3
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/warehouse facilities of a similar
scale and intensity. Furthermore, the proposed building is substantially surrounded by existing
buildings. Operations on the site are expected to meet all Development Code standards regarding
noise and odor.
4. The Project was environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City
determined that an EIR would be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an
environmental impact report (EIR)that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project.
By separate Resolution No. 22-001, the Planning Commission has: (i) made the required CEQA
findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; and (iii) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 22-001 is incorporated herein by
reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials
that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning
Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set
forth therein are made applicable to the Project.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in
the attached Conditions of Approval.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Bryan Dopp, Chairman
ATTEST:
Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED, AP, Secretary
I, Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED, AP, 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 9th day of February 2022, by the
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-02
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00766— 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 4
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Planning Department
Statement of Agreement and Acceptance
of Conditions of Approval for Design Review DRC2019-00766
I, Hannibal Petrossi, as applicant for Design Review DRC2019-00766 hereby state that I am in
agreement with and accept the conditions of approval for Design Review DRC2019-00766, for
property located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, APN: 0229-
111-60, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga on February 9, 2022 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. 22-002 for Design Review
DRC2019-00766 and Resolution of Approval No. 22-001 for the Environmental Impact Report
and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Exhibit K
Conditions of Approval
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA Community Development Department
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Building plans shall demonstrate that all walls comply with wall height requirements, as outlined in
RCMC Chapter 17.48.
2. Photometric plans submitted during building plan check shall comply with the City's outdoor and site
lighting standards, as outlined in RCMC Sec. 17.58.050.
3. Design Review DRC2019-00766 is for the approval of a 159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse
building, subdivided into four (4) suites. Any modifications to the square footage of the overall building,
size of suites, or the number of suites shall require Planning Department review and approval.
4. Developer shall provide all prospective tenants a disclosure stating that fire and smoke are to be
expected to be visible from the subject property, as the property is located across from a City fire
training center. A draft copy of this disclosure shall be provided to the Planning Department for review,
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Standard Conditions of Approval
5. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections
shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as
required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the
building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted
mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or
roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent
nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted
mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or
roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included
in building plans.
6. 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.
Exhibit L
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
7. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents,
officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such
approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs
and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay
as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the
defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this
condition.
8. 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.
9. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of
Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee in the amount of $3,495.25. All checks are to be
made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission
Secretary prior to public hearing.
10. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within
2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
11. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the
Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined
in 17.124.020.D.
If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building
permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance.
If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an
application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to
the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate
the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124.
If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be
subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the
proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council.
No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any
development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is
subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Planning Department.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 2 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
12. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the
case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for
Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or
prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction
Services.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls.
16. 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.
17. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval
prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics
of the selected tree species.
18. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per
30 linear feet of building.
19. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design
shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.
20. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient
landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82.
21. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet.
22. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and
exits shall be striped per City standards.
23. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any
signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate
application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs.
24. 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.
25. 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.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 3 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
26. 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.
27. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall
be routed through the interior of the building walls.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of
Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
34. 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.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Any existing public improvements that are damaged or substandard such as sidewalks, driveways, curb
& gutters, asphalt, etc, shall be removed and replaced to the current City Standards.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 4 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
2. Developer shall limit vehicular access of the east driveway along Jersey Blvd to passenger cars only. All
truck access along Jersey Blvd shall be right-in, right-out only at the west driveway along this frontage.
Provide a driveway design to include an island median and all signing and striping to be reviewed
during the plan check process.
3. Rail Spurs:
The City has a strong interest in creating urban trails that increase connectivity between neighborhoods,
workplaces, and other destinations. To that end, General Plan Policy CS-6.3 provides: "Continue to
incorporate, where feasible, regional and community trails along utility corridors and drainage
channels." Further, the City supports the eventual closure and abandonment of railroad spurs to avoid
unnecessary crossings. A north/south railroad spur currently owned by the BNSF Railway ("BNSF") is
located on portions of APNs 0229-111-15 and 0209-145-11 (the "Rail Spur"), immediately west of the
subject property (APN 0229-111-60). Although the applicant does not currently own the Rail Spur, the
City believes that BNSF may convey some or all of the Rail Spur to the applicant or a subsequent owner
of the subject property when the Rail Spur is no longer necessary for BNSF's operations. If BNSF
conveys some or all of the Rail Spur and the fee interest in the underlying real property immediately
adjacent to the subject property to the applicant or a subsequent owner, then the applicant or
subsequent owner shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate such real property to the City for use as a
public trail. The applicant shall record a covenant against the subject property that implements the
terms of this condition.
Standard Conditions of Approval
4. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.
5. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
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. ** 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.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 5 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
8. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: "All improvements within
the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans." If
there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern.
9. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Appr.
Street Lights
etc.
Notes: (a) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check.
10. 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.
11. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees 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 street improvements, prior to 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. 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.
e. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to
City Standards, except for single-family residential lots.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 6 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
12. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed
legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement
plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street
trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet _ (typically Sheet 1)." Where public
landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape
improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City
inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as
determined by the City inspector.
3)All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 issuance of Building Permits.
Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
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.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 7 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
18. 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.
19. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel
prior to issuance of Building Permits.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Locking and latching hardware for access doors is required to be operable from the exterior of the
building and is required to be single action latch/lock release on the interior of the building.
2. Access doors are required to be identified in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard
has been uploaded to the Documents section.
3. Access doors are required to be distributed along the exterior of the building such that the lineal
distance between adjacent access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center.
4. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District
Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.
5. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and
issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire
District.
6. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit.
Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.
7. Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate
permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.
8. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted
separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for
routing to the Fire District.
9. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately
and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the
submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to
the Fire District.
10. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and
issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire
District.
11. Plans for the sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit.
Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 8 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
12. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are
required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has
been uploaded to the Documents section.
13. The location, size, construction materials, or other features of this building and the associated project
are such that adequate emergency responder radio coverage may not be achievable within the building
that is proposed. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed by San
Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD). Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD
at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd.sbcounty.gov
Upon substantial completion and final completion of construction, the fire code official will oversee a
radio signal strength test that is in accordance with the California Fire Code. If acceptable radio
coverage cannot be achieved after construction is completed, equipment necessary to increase the
radio signal strength or otherwise allow adequate emergency responder radio communication will be
required to be installed.
14. Designated and conforming aerial apparatus access is required in accordance with Fire District
Standard 5-1. Show aerial apparatus access on the fire access plan. The Standard has been uploaded
to the Documents section.
15. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in
accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents
section.
16. Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Section 906 of the California Fire Code. Consult with
the Fire Inspector for the correct type, size, and exact installation locations.
17. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD).
CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com.
18. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District
has adopted the appendix without local amendments. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow
must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12
months.
19. Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard
has been uploaded to the Documents section.
20. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required
to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.
21. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be
required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system
controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the
Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the
building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 9 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
22. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot
obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the
shrubs and trees.
23. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has
been uploaded to the Documents section.
24. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been
uploaded to the Documents section.
25. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in
accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents
section.
26. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and
equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with
Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section.
27. Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an 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.
28. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire
sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and
equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District
Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.
Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural
calculations and T-24 energy calcualtions to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the
current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards.
The new structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for
new structures. Disabled access to the site and building must be provided in accordance to the State of
California published thresholds at the time of plan check submittal
Grading Section
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be
included within the engineered wall plans and calculations.
Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 10 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
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 City Engineer, or designee, 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 Engineering Services for review, the
rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage
Plan/Permit.
8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent
property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter
wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line.
9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility
path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance
with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail
including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building
Code.
10. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible,
and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.
11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading 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.
12. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building
Code.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 11 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
13. 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.
14. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan)
set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the
building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC
R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted
California Building Code/Residential Code.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be
prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, or his designee 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. Roof water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway
culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit.
19. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California
Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 12 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
20. 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).
21. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of
the project Conditions of Approval.
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
City Engineer, or his designee, 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 City Engineer, or his
designee, 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. 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 City
Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality
Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.
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.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 13 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way
permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, 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. Prior to the start of landscaping operations, the landscape architect and the landscape contractor shall
provide a sample of the weed fabric barrier to the Project Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department. The weed barrier shall be permeable.
32. 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.
33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management
plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of
concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a
minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters
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".
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 14 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
36. GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP
document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No.
R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm
Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:
Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection):
Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to
primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer
strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect
groundwater:
a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
ground water quality objectives.
b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater
quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior
to infiltration.
c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large
commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial
parking lot as '100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or
more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking
purposes').
d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment
BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high
vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other
high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or
maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used
car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does
any vehicular repair work.
f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and
groundwater contamination.
g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water
supply wells.
h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high
groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial
uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained.
i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water
Code Section 13050.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 15 of 16
Project#: DRC2019-00766
Project Name: EDR - Jersey and Milliken Warehouse
Location: -- - 022911160-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
37. NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES — CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
CODE — Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.10
(Grading and paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water
flows to keep water from entering buildings. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but
are not limited to, the following:
1. Swales.
2. Water collection and disposal systems.
3. French drains.
4. Water retention gardens.
5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater
recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
38. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined
exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond
shall be approved by the City Engineer, or designee.
39. (Grd.100) 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.
40. (Grd.017) 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".
41. (Grd.101) 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.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2022 Page 16 of 16
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE: February 9, 2022
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager/Interim Planning Director
INITIATED BY: David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 —
GOLDEN MEADLOWLAND, LLC -A request for approval of a sixth 1-year extension of
time ("EOT")for previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, a subdivision of
150.79 acres located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and
East Avenue into 358 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low (up to 2
dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. APNs:
1087-081-12, -19, -20, -21, -22, -23, and -24. Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA),the proposed EOT is covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) certified by the City Council on June 16, 2004, by City Council Resolution 04-206.
No further environmental review is required for the proposed EOT, which is within the
scope of the previous EIR. All requirements, mitigations, and conditions of approval
associated with the certified EIR and approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 remain
applicable and must be complied with. (Continued from January 26, 2022, to February
9, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action:
• Deny the request for a sixth 1-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 by adoption
of the attached Resolution of Approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A request for a sixth (6th), one-year extension of time in accordance with Government Code Section
66452.6(e)of the Subdivision Map Act(Cal. Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.)and Chapter 16.16 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code for a single-family residential subdivision project originally approved on June
16, 2004.
On January 26, 2022, the Planning Commission held a regular scheduled meeting in which the request for
the sixth (6th) one-year extension of time was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration.
However, due to a minor technical error, which resulted in some mailing addresses being inadvertently left
off the mailing list for the public notice, the project was continued to the next regular scheduled meeting
on February 9, 2022, to allow the opportunity for all affected and interested residents to participate.
The Planning Commission is being asked to act on the tentative tract map extension request only, in its
current design. There are no alternative proposals for the project site, nor are any modifications to the tract
map's approved design from 2004 proposed for consideration by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
The site generally slopes from north to south at approximately 6 percent gradient and currently contains
the remains of a foundation from a residential structure, remnants of low stonewalls, and irrigation flumes.
The site is otherwise undeveloped and contains a variety of native vegetation including California
Buckwheat White Sage, White Sage, Scalebroom Scrub, and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and a
variety of non-native vegetation. The site is divided generally from southwest to northeast by the Etiwanda
Avenue Fault Scarp. As discussed below, a certified EIR analyzed the project's potential environmental
impacts on the area.
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 land Traditional Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential2,3
Low (L) Residential2,3
Power line corridor General Open Space and Utility Corridor(UC)
North Facilities
Vacant land 1 ) Traditional Neighborhood Low(L) Residentia12
approved for or 269 269 lots)
Cucamonga Valley Water General Open Space and
South District CVWD facility Facilities Very Low (VL) Residential'
Vacant land Neighborhood Center
Vacant land (SUBTT18908 2
approved for 21 lots Low (L) Residential
East pp ) Traditional Neighborhood
Vacant land Very Low (VL) Residential2
West Single-family residences Suburban Neighborhood Low(L) Residential2
Very Low
1 -Etiwanda Specific Plan;2—Etiwanda North Specific Plan; 3—the land use designations and zoning are divided by the Etiwanda
Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault Zone
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 was initially approved by the City Council on June 16, 2004, for an initial
period of three years. The approval period for a tentative tract map begins on the date the map is approved.
As discussed below, several discretionary and legislative extensions of this tentative map have also been
granted over the years.
On January 6, 1999, the City Council amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to establish a 3-year initial
approval period for tract and parcel maps. The amendment also allows the Planning Commission to grant
time extensions in 12-month increments for up to an additional 5 years (a maximum of 8 years from the
original time approval) (RCMC § 16.16.170.C.). Additionally, State legislation passed between 2008 and
2020 granted nearly 9 years of additional automatic extensions to existing subdivision maps, all of which
have been applied to Tract 16072. The most recent extension applied to Tract 16072 came through
Assembly Bill 1561, which took effect on January 1, 2021, and extended certain residential entitlements
and subdivisions for 18 months. Assembly Bill 1561 automatically extended the expiration date for Tract
16072 to January 12, 2022.
Government Code Section 66452.6(c) of the Subdivision Map Act also excludes periods of time from
counting toward the expiration of the tentative map when a lawsuit challenging its approval is pending in
court. On July 16, 2004, the Spirit of the Sage Council challenged the City's approval of Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT16072. A settlement agreement was reached between Spirit of the Sage Council and the
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 3
applicant on August 12, 2005. The Spirit of the Sage Council in return filed a request for dismissal of the
petition for writ of mandate against the City. Dismissal of the petition concluded the period of time the
tentative map was pending in court, which resulted in 392 days.The stay of time for 392 days was approved
by the Planning Commission on August 14, 2019 and applied to the life of the map.
Collectively, the approval period for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 has been extended for roughly 17
years and 6 months, not including this current request. The table below outlines the series of discretionary
and legislative extensions that occurred for Tract 16072.
Approving Approval/Extension Approval Approval Date Expiration Date
Authority Type Period
City Council Tentative Tract Map 3 Years June 16, 2004 June 16, 2007
Approval
Lawsuit settled 422 days after approval n/a n/a n/a
Planning Commission Time Extension 1 Year June 13, 2007 June 16, 2008
Planning Time Extension 1 Year May 28, 2008 June 16, 2009
Commission
Senate Bill Automatic Extension 1 Year June 16, 2009 June 16, 2010
1185
Assembly Bill Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2010 June 16, 2012
333
Assembly Bill Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2012 June 16, 2014
208
Assembly Bill Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2014 June 16, 2016
116
Planning Commission Time Extension 1 Year June 22, 2016 June 16, 2017
Planning Time Extension 1 Year June 14, 2017 June 16, 2018
Commission
Planning Time Extension 1 Year June 13, 2018 June 16, 2019
Commission
Planning Proposed Litigation Stay 392 days August 14, 2019 July 12, 2020
Commission
Assembly Bill 1 Year
1561 Automatic Extension and 6 July 12, 2020 January 12, 2022
Months
Planning Proposed Time 1 Year January 12, 2023
Commission Extension
The applicant has received five one-year extensions from the Planning Commission, as noted in the table
above. Chapter 16.16.170 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code allows extensions of tentative tract
maps to be granted in 12-month increments for up to five years. While the Municipal Code provides a
maximum of 5, 12-month extensions, the Subdivision Map Act authorizes the Planning Commission's
consideration of extensions not exceeding a total of six years (Gov. Code, § 66452.6(e)). As such, the
applicant is seeking approval of a sixth and final one-year discretionary extension of Tract 16072 pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act to extend the expiration date of January 12, 2023.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 4
Tract 16072 includes 358 single-family lots that range from roughly 9,000 square feet to over'/2 an acre in
size. The subdivision is designed to provide one point of access from a future segment of Wilson Avenue,
two points of access from Etiwanda Avenue, one point of access from East Avenue, and designed with
internal circulation throughout the project site consisting of various cul-de-sacs. The project and project
site are currently regulated by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. In the early 1990s, the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, which covers roughly 6,800 acres of land in the upper Etiwanda area, was adopted by City
Council to help guide development of the foothill neighborhoods and ensure adequate conservation of
open space. The City's previous General Plan (adopted in 2010) also identified the upper Etiwanda area
as a location for low intensity rural development using land use designations of very low and low residential.
Under these previous designations, development was characterized as detached, very-low density single-
family homes on half-acre lots or larger at 0.10 to 2 dwelling units per acre, or detached, low density
development on smaller lots at 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre. The specific plan also required several circulation
improvements that were necessary for the entire project area, for a variety of reasons including emergency
access, and a variety of policies to help guide circulation patterns as portions of the specific plan began to
develop. Some of the noteworthy improvements include the construction of various streets such as Wilson
Avenue, East Avenue north of Wilson Avenue, portions of Day Creek Boulevard, among others. The
policies related to circulation were incorporated into the specific plan to ensure efficient circulation was
produced while other components of the Etiwanda area were protected.
When the City first began work on the Annexation Area north of Los Osos and west of Tract 16072, the
traditional standards in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan were the original foundation. Approximately a
year or so into the process, development trends began to shift, and the residents of the City clearly
expressed their support for a different approach. Accordingly, the City took a different approach to
development in the foothills with the adoption of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood Conservation Plan
(ENHCP) in 2019. After four years of extensive public engagement, EHNCP reflects the community's
current vision for how new foothill neighborhoods should be designed reflecting the City's heritage without
compromising habitat and open space conservation, recreational access, and unprecedented views of the
San Gabriel mountains.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Section 16.16.110 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, a tentative tract map may be
denied by the Planning Commission on any of the grounds provided by City ordinances or the Subdivision
Map Act. Furthermore, Section 16.16.110.B of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code provides findings
for the denial of a tentative tract map, one or more of which must be made by the Planning Commission.
Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the request for a 6th 1-year extension of time for
Tract 16072 based on the General Plan consistency as well as the status of several outstanding conditions,
as discussed below.
General Plan Consistency
On December 15, 2021, the City Council approved a comprehensive General Plan update and certified
the companion Environmental Impact Report. The General Plan update was an extensive process that
occurred over the span of two years and resulted in a community-based plan that will create places where
people want to be and can thrive. The General Plan has several crosscutting ideas that are applicable to
this consideration: providing connectivity and accessibility, designing for people first, and creating
destinations.
The Etiwanda area is currently regulated by several specific plans, including EHNCP, that are intended to
provide direction for the conservation of the rural and natural open spaces, while carefully guiding future
development in the foothills. The General Plan acknowledges the neighborhoods built under these
previous plans and provides for their maintenance and preservation. For those large remaining sites of
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 5
Etiwanda, the General Plan acknowledges the community's vision for how future foothill neighborhoods
should be designed and built to better reflect Etiwanda's traditional heritage as well as to provide future
residents of those neighborhoods with greater access, greater connectivity, and enhanced public safety.
Land Use Designation: Tract 16072 is one of these areas and has the General Plan designation of
Traditional Neighborhood. The Traditional Neighborhood designation is intended promote traditional
pedestrian-oriented neighborhood patterns using a mix of low and low-medium density residential. The
development pattern is intended to conform to the natural terrain, using minimal grading in order to
preserve the natural landforms of the hillside areas. Development patterns are also guided by strong
access and connectivity, incorporating streets that are interconnected with a grid network and human-
scaled walkable blocks. This is typically achieved by incorporating various pedestrian connections from
neighborhood streets, providing bike lanes along collector streets, or by using well-designed streets that
include landscape enhancements that define the public spaces. Following are requirements from the
General Plan for the Traditional Neighborhood Designation:
• "Lots, blocks, and streets conform to the natural terrain, minimizing grading and preserving natural
landforms."
Inconsistent: Tract 16072 plans for mass grading and the creation of large fill slopes along Wilson
Avenue and East Avenue.
• "Streets are highly interconnected with a grid network pattern and human-scale blocks."
Inconsistent: Tract 16072 provides for extremely limited connection with just one connection on
Wilson Avenue and one connection on East Avenue. The vast majority of the streets are dead ends
(six cul-de-sacs in total), providing for the creation of three very large blocks.
• "Open space is in the form of neighborhood parks for active and passive recreational use for all ages
and other small open spaces such as plazas and squares at mixed-use and commercial areas."
Inconsistent: Tract 16072 provides no open space beyond landscaped slopes. No open space is
provided in the form of neighborhood parks. Note that Tract 16072 is a component of a larger
development concept that consolidates open space within a fault hazard zone, a trailhead, and an
equestrian center. Open space is also not provided in the form of neighborhood parks as a part of the
larger development concept
General Plan Policy Consistency: The project fails to meet relevant policies of the General Plan, and
therefore is inconsistent with the General Plan. The information below discusses these inconsistencies.
Applicable Policy Analysis
LC-1.1 Complete Places. Ensure that a broad range of Neither Tract 16072 nor the larger Richland-Tracy-Chen
recreational,commercial, educational,arts,cultural, and development provides for easily accessible amenities.
civic amenities are nearby and easily accessible to Limited open space is anticipated, access is limited, and
residents and workers in each neighborhood and each no civic or commercial uses are provided for available
employment district. in the vicinity.
LC-1.4 Connectivity and Mobility. Work to complete a Tract 16072 does not provide for a network of
network of pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets and pedestrian friendly streets. Streets primarily end in cul-
trails, designed in concert with adjacent land uses, de-sacs, there are only two connections outside of the
Tract to the larger street network, and blocks are very
long with indirect perimeters.
LC-3.5 Efficient Growth. Manage growth in a manner I While a current Fiscal Impact Analysis was not prepared
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 6
that is fiscally sustainable, paced with the availability of (nor would typically be required for a map extension),
infrastructure, and protects and/or enhances community since this map was approved 18 years ago, the City has
value. Discourage growth and development that will found that large-lot single family development projects
impact the City are typically not fiscally sustainable as such projects
tend to struggle to generate sufficient revenue to offset
the corresponding increase in municipal services.
LC-4.2 Complete Neighborhoods. Strive to ensure that Tract 16072 is designed as a limited access suburban
all new neighborhoods, and infill development within or residential subdivision. No services are in walking
adjacent to existing neighborhoods, are complete and distance nor are any services proposed as part of this
well-structured such that the physical layout, and land Tract. Tract 16072 is part of a larger project that
use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit provides limited open space amenities generally
use, and have the following characteristics. clustered within the fault hazard setback zone. Due to
• Be organized into human-scale, walkable blocks, with the large-block, limited access street and block network,
a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, and pedestrian and bicycle connectivity would be indirect.
vehicles. Tract 16072 is not organized in relation to an activity
• Be organized in relation to one or more focal activity center. There are no goods and services within walking
centers, such as a park, school, civic building, or distance of the site. Lot sizes are generally uniform with
neighborhood retail, such that most homes are no limited variability, precluding diversity in housing types,
further than one-quarter mile. sizes, or affordability.
• Require development patterns such that 60 percent of
dwelling units are within 1/2-mile walking distance to
neighborhood goods and services.
• Provide as wide a diversity of housing styles and types
as possible, and appropriate to the existing
neighborhood context.
• Provide homes with entries and windows facing the
street, with driveways and garages generally
deem hasized in the streetsca a composition.
LC-4.3 Connected Neighborhoods. Require that each Tract 16072 does not make all possible connections. It
new increment of residential development make all provides just two connections to Wilson and East
possible street, trail, and open space connections to Avenues, providing far fewer connections than is
existing adjoining residential or commercial appropriate for good pedestrian and public safety
development and provide for future connections into any access.
adjoining parcels.
LC-4.4 Balanced Neighborhoods. Within the density Tract 16072 lot sizes are generally uniform with limited
ranges and housing types defined in this General Plan, variability, precluding diversity in housing types, sizes,
promote a range of housing and price levels within each or affordability that would help accommodate diverse
neighborhood to accommodate diverse ages and ages and incomes.
incomes.
LC-4.5 Equitable Housing Opportunities and Diversity of Tract 16072 lot sizes are generally uniform with limited
Housing Types. Within the density ranges and housing variability, precluding diversity in housing types, sizes,
types defined in this General Plan, promote a diversity or affordability that would help accommodate diverse
of land tenure opportunities to provide a range of ages and incomes. Based on proposed lots sizes, all
choices on the types of property estate available and units are expected to be for sale within a fairly limited
ready access to an equitable array of opportunities at a band of higher pricing.
variety of price points. For projects five acres or larger,
require that diverse housing types be provided and
intermixed rather than segregated by dwelling type.
LC-4.6 Block Length. Require new neighborhoods to be Block lengths far exceed both the 600-foot length and
designed with blocks no longer than 600 feet nor a 1800 foot perimeter requirement. No mid-block
perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions can be connections are provided. For example, if Tract 16072
made if mid-block pedestrian and bicycle connections were to meet this standard, there would be at least one
are provided, or if the neighborhood is on the edge of additional connection on Wilson Avenue and at least
town and is intended to have a rural or semi-rural design two additional connections on East Avenue.
character
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 7
LC-4.7 Intersection Density. Require new With only two connections to the surrounding street
neighborhoods to provide high levels of intersection network and one additional proposed connection to
density. Neighborhood Center and Semi-Rural future tracts, At 150 acres and under the most
Neighborhoods should provide approximately 400 permissive metric of 200 intersections per square mile,
intersections per square mile. Suburban Neighborhoods Tract map 16072 should have at least 46 intersections.
should provide at least 200 intersections per square Tract 16072 has twelve intersections. Tract 16072 fails
mile. to meet the intersection density requirements.
LC-4.12 Conventional Suburban Neighborhood Design. Tract 16072 is a conventional suburban design with
Discourage the construction of new residential long perimeter walls, discontinuous cul-de-sac street
neighborhoods that are characterized by sound walls on patterns, long block lengths, single building and
any streets, discontinuous cul-de-sac street patterns, housing types, and lack of walking or biking access to
long block lengths, single building and housing types, parks, schools, goods, and services and represents an
and lack of walking or biking access to parks, schools, approach that the General Plan discourages.
nods, and services.
LC-4.13 Neighborhood Edges. Encourage Tract 16072 would not provide for neighborhood edges
neighborhood edges along street corridors to be along street corridors with active frontages. The
characterized by active frontages,whether single-family neighborhood edges are characterized by long walls
or multifamily residential, or by ground floor, with landscaping without any midblock access points.
neighborhood-service non-residential uses. Where this
is not possible due to existing development patterns or
envisioned streetscape character, neighborhood edges
shall be designed based on the following policies:
• Strongly discourage the construction of new gated
communities except in Semi-Rural Neighborhoods.
• Allow the use of sound walls to buffer new
neighborhoods from existing sources of noise pollution
such as railroads and limited access roadways.
Consider sound walls as sites for public art.
• Prohibit the use of sound walls to buffer residential
areas from arterial or collector streets. Instead design
approaches such as building setbacks, landscaping and
other techniques shall be used.
• In the case where sound walls might be acceptable,
require pedestrian access points to improve access
from the Neighborhoods to nearby commercial,
educational, and recreational amenities, activity centers
and transit stops.
• Discourage the use of signs to distinguish one
residential project from another. Strive for
neighborhoods to blend seamlessly into one another. If
provided, gateways should be landmarks and urban
design focal points, not advertisements for home
builders.
LC-6.2 Small Scale Centers. Support one or more very Neighborhood centers were always envisioned in the
small-scale Centers on well-located under-developed Etiwanda area in previous General Plans and Specific
parcels within walking, biking, or horseback riding Plans within or adjacent to this tract. Tract 16072 does
distance of neighborhoods in Alta Loma and Etiwanda. not provide any small scale centers that would help
meet this policy and increase amenities in northern
Etiwanda.
OS-1.1 Equitable Access to Parks. Strive to ensure that Tract 16072's current design does not provide open
at least one park or other public open space is within space or parks for new homes. While the broader plan
safe, comfortable walk from homes and jobs, without intends to use the existing fault zone as open space,
crossing major streets except at signalized crossings. the cul-de-sac circulation and the lack of adequate
Equitable access to parks should be determined based pedestrian circulation throughout the site will make it
on the fundamental character of the place rural, challenging to reach the common area without the use
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 8
suburban, urban) and corresponding transportation of a car or without having to take a more circuitous
infrastructure. route b walkin .
OS-1.5 Design for Safety. Require the use of Crime While Tract 16072 does not provide any open space, it
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is designed to abut an open space feature. The homes
design techniques such as providing clear lines of sight, proposed for this edge are not designed with CPTED
appropriate lighting, and wayfinding signs to ensure that best practices. Rather, the new homes would turn their
parks are safe and easy to navigate. backs to the open space and not provide eyes on the
space.
OS-1.6 New Development. Ensure that new residential As discussed above Tract 16072 does not provide
and nonresidential developments provide adequate on- open space. The larger project does but not in a
site recreational and open space amenities consistent manner laid out in the General Plan.
with applicable General Plan Designations, and the
needs of new development.
MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement innovative street and Tract 16072 does not implement any innovative street
intersection designs to maximize efficiency and safety and intersection designs as required by this policy.
in the city. Use traffic calming tools to assist in
implementing complete street principles. Possible tools
include roundabouts, curb extensions, high visibility
crosswalks, and separated bicycle infrastructure
MA-2.4 Street Connectivity. Require connectivity and Tract 16072 does not provide connectivity,
accessibility to a mix of land uses that meets residents' accessibility, or a land use mix that would assist
daily needs within walking distance. residents with meeting their daily needs within walking
distance.
MA-2.10 Block Pattern. Require development projects Tract 16072 arranges streets in a discontinuous cul-
to arrange streets in an interconnected block pattern, so de-sac-based block pattern that concentrates travel to
that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers are not forced two access points and is inconsistent with this policy.
onto arterial streets for inter- or intra- neighborhood
travel.
MA-5.1 Land Use Supporting Reduced VMT. Work to While Tract 16072 was evaluated under CEQA prior to
reduce VMT through land use planning, enhanced requirements for evaluating VMT and no tract-specific
transit access, localized attractions, and access to non- analysis was prepared, the City has found that
automotive modes. traditional development patterns as envisioned and
described by the General Plan can reduce VMT by up
to 15% below VMT levels of conventional suburban
designs such as Tract 16072.
H-1.1 RHNA Requirement. Encourage the development Tract 16072 does not provide a meaningful range of
of a wide range of housing options, types, and prices housing types, options, or affordability.
that will enable the City to achieve its share of the
RHNA.
RC-1.6 Hillside Grading. Grading of hillsides shall be Tract 16072 relies on a mass grading approach and
minimized, following natural landform to the maximum does not follow the natural landform to any great
extent possible. Retaining walls shall be discouraged degree, resulting in large fill slopes on Wilson Avenue
and if necessary screened from view. and East Avenue.
S-3.2 Fire Protection Plans. All new development, Tract 16072 does not have a current Fire Protection
redevelopment, and major remodels in the WUIFA will Plan that reflects current Fire District policies and
require the preparation of Fire Protection Plans (FPPs) current best practices. Additionally, the 2014 Fire
to reduce fire threat, in accordance with Fire District Protection Plan has not been analyzed or updated
policies and procedures I against State policies, requirements, or best practices.
As discussed above, Tract 16072 is not compliant with the Traditional Neighborhood Designation nor
supporting policies. In response to community priorities, the General Plan provides specific direction
to steer away from conventional suburban design specifically because such a design generally results
in greater environmental and public health impacts such as increased vehicle activity and vehicle miles
traveled, increased air quality emissions, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and decreased
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 9
physical activity.
Connectivity is a key aspect of the General Plan overall and a key aspect of the Traditional
Neighborhood designation. Not only does connectivity benefit walking, biking, and other means of
access throughout the city and neighborhoods, but it also provides substantial benefits for public safety
and emergency response. Strong connectivity provides resiliency and redundancy on the road network,
it provides additional routes for emergency personnel, and improves access during an evacuation. This
is especially important to consider in undeveloped areas, such as Tract 16072, that are potentially
vulnerable to many types of natural disasters. The current design of Tract 16072 incorporates
numerous cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets and provides a minimal number of external access points
into the subdivision. This is contrary to the Traditional Neighborhood concept and does not lend itself
well to providing robust and resilient emergency access.
To further emphasize the importance of emergency access, an Evacuation Analysis was prepared as
a companion document to the General Plan. The Evacuation Analysis supports the General Plan's
vision of building strong connectivity and addressing many of our disconnected neighborhoods to allow
multiple and varied ways in and out of the neighborhood during emergency events. The Evacuation
Analysis applies to the entire city but pays particularly close attention to the areas north of SR-210
freeway. The Evacuation Analysis identifies areas north of the freeway as the area that has to travel
the farthest to evacuation centers, and the area needing the longest lead time to facilitate an
evacuation. Additionally, this is an area of the City that is closest to the wildland urban interface (WUI),
closest to the historic wildfire perimeters in the City, has areas that are within a flood hazard area, and
is just south of the Cucamonga Fault line (plus the Etiwanda Avenue Fault and portions of the Red Hill
Fault). Tract 16072 is located at the convergence of these activities, adding another layer to the
importance of connectivity, access, and redundancy in the road network. As currently designed, Tract
16072 is not contributing to improved access or addressing the concerns of disconnected
neighborhoods. Tract 16072 is continuing a similar development pattern from that past that is contrary
to the vision of the current General Plan, which aims to address these needs while also creating better
street networks into the future.
Additional Considerations
Lack of Applicant Diligence in Processing Final Map: There are several conditions of approval, required by
the Planning and Engineering Departments, remaining to be completed prior to a final map being recorded.
These conditions were imposed on the original project approval from 2004 and include requirements such
as:
• Addressing biological resource habitat preservation —the conditions of approval require the applicant
to transfer 147.7 acres of land for permanent offsite open space and habitat preservation to a City-
approved conservation entity. The condition includes an option to pay an in-lieu fee, however that fee
must be accepted by a city-approved conservation entity and is not paid directly to the City.
• Provide fair share contributions towards traffic improvements —the condition requires the applicant to
contribute its fair share towards local offsite and onsite traffic improvement. These contributions are
also subject to an agreement with the City that must be in place prior to the tract map's approval.
• Forming a Homeowners Association and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) — CC&Rs
and the Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners Association must be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and City Attorney, and recorded concurrently with
the final map. CCR's and an HOA have not been formed to date or submitted to the City for review.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 10
• FEMA compliance for drainage and flood protection facilities —the applicant/developer is responsible
for removing the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) zone designation from the project area.
The developer is required to provide the necessary drainage and flood protection facilities to meet
FEMA requirements and obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA prior to
final map recording. This has not been satisfied, nor to our knowledge has the process been initiated
with FEMA.
These items have remained outstanding over the 18-year life of the tentative map and must be satisfied
prior to the approval and recordation of the final map. Further, despite working on those conditions of
approval, particularly the biological resource habitat preservation, for over 15 years, the applicant is not
materially closer to meeting the requirements than they were 14 years ago.
Correspondence Received from Applicant: On January 26, 2022, the City received correspondence from
the applicant regarding the recommendation to deny the proposed extension of time, which was provided
to the Planning Commission at the January 26, 2022 meeting.
The letter makes three general claims: (1) the City does not have discretion to deny an application for an
extension of time of a tentative map; (2) the City's denial of the requested extension of time for Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT16072 would violate the Housing Accountability Act; and (3)the Final Map submitted for
approval on March 5, 2021, complies with the conditions of approval imposed on Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16072, the Subdivision Map Act, and the City's subdivision ordinance.
With respect to the last claim, the applicant's submission of a Final Map for consideration by the City is not
part of the Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed extension of time for Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16072. The Planning Commission is not the decision-making body for the Final Map. The review
of the Final Map is a ministerial act delegated under the Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance to
the City Engineer and the City Council.
City staff, after consultation with the City Attorney's office, also disagrees with the applicant's remaining
assertions. First, the Commission's review of an application for an extension of times is a discretionary
matter, not ministerial. The applicant cites to specific case law asserting that the Planning Commission
may not consider changes to the City's General Plan when considering a request to extend a tentative
map. However, the cases cited by the applicant do not support the applicant's position. One case
addresses whether a planning commission may impose conditions of approval on a tentative map
extension; not whether that legislative body had the discretion to deny the extension. Another case cited
by the applicant addresses whether a local agency could act on an application for an extension of time
even after the tentative map in that case had expired. Other cases cited by the applicant concern the life
and use of conditional use permits and do not apply to situations where the entitlement is a tentative map
and the applicant has not acquired vested rights. Regardless of the cases cited by the applicant, City staff
has provided the Planning Commission with evidence that the applicant has not been diligent in finalizing
the Final Map, which is one of many bases for denial of the extension of time that is recommended by
staff. Additionally, the Planning Commission has itself expressed concerns about continually extending
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 on previous occasions when considering the five one-year discretionary
extensions because the applicant had done little to advance the development on the site over many years.
Lastly, as the Planning Commission is aware, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) prohibits the City from
denying or reducing the density of a "housing development project" that meets all of the City's objective
standards. If the proposed extension of time falls within the scope of the HAA, City staff has presented
the Planning Commission with facts supporting why the project does not meet specific objective standards,
including the City's objective block network requirements and circulation requirements under the General
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 11
Plan. Given the project's failure to comply with identified objective standards and General Plan policies,
the City has discretion to deny the proposed extension of time under the HAA.
In the event the Planning Commission approves the Staff recommendation to deny the extension of time
for Tract 16072, the tentative tract will expire unless the Commission's action is appealed to the City
Council. The expiration of Tract 16072 will terminate all proceedings and the City would be prohibited
under the Subdivision Map Act from processing a final map for the property without first processing a new
tentative map. Upon expiration, any future subdivision will be required to be consistent with the General
Plan as articulated by the Traditional Neighborhood designation as well as the policies pertaining to land
use, circulation, safety, and environmental performance. In the event the Planning Commission decides
to approve a 61" 1-year extension of time, the applicant will be required to complete all of the remaining
conditions and record the final map prior to the map's new expiration date. Unless the Legislature enacts
additional automatic extensions applicable to Tract 16072, the Planning Commission's approval of the
proposed extension would be the final discretionary extension allowed for Tract 16072 under the
Subdivision Map Act.
Public Art: Tentative maps are exempt from providing public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the
Development Code. The related development review for 358 single-family residences on the project site
was approved on by the City Council June 16, 2004, prior to the City Council's approval of Ordinance 912
(Creative Placemaking and Public Art) on July 19, 2017.
Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
local CEQA Guidelines, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report on June 16, 2004, in connection
with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. 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.
FISCAL IMPACT: A fiscal impact analysis was not prepared for this project; however, the project
proponent will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees in the event the requested extension of time
is approved. These fees are intended to help fund and offset the impacts on city infrastructure such as
police and public safety, transportation and drainage infrastructure, library services, animal services, parks
and community and recreation services, among others, that result from impacts and the increased demand
from the proposed project. Furthermore, in the event the extension of time is approved and constructed,
the project site will increase in value as the parcels will be assessed an annual property tax. A percentage
of this annual tax is shared with the City. However, generally speaking, the City has found that residential
projects, especially large lot single family residential projects, struggle to provide enough annual revenue
to the City to offset the increase in demand on city infrastructure.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The City of Rancho Cucamonga has been committed to creating a
world-class community that is grounded in the concepts of excellence, opportunity, and a high quality of
life. As the City works to carry out this commitment and works towards its vision of a world-class city, it is
guided by a series of core values. Tract 16072, as currently designed, does not meet these core values of
the City Council due to its inconsistency with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2022-00020 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC.
February 9, 2022
Page 12
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular size legal
advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were
mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Written correspondence was
received from the applicant on January 26, 2022, in response to the initial public hearing scheduled on
January 26, 2022. However, to date, for the continued public hearing, no written comments or phone calls
have been received regarding the project notifications.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Tentative Tract Map 16072
Exhibit B - Applicant Correspondence
Exhibit C - Draft Resolution 22-04 Denial for a 6t" 1-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16072
�r
��r�¢��y,� � .. "+ "�.^"r+. w�'sue..���.r.� —+r�`r�r,,,.Y�•:rp�� '. �
---
�� ♦ r/
G
Iff
�rEmma
�' lF� S �3 •. •f�Y,f COXS.U.II IXG ..- ..� .E
RAN 911
}�G�.�;- �raw+�.�--'"e��ef��••saw+'�F�.e�,.���ere+wrrriGfiwi.r".. 'I � 1
. A a . ► 1 � l l A
•
R U TA N Matthew D.Francois
Direct Dial:(650)798-5669
RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP E-mail:mfrancois@rutan.com
January 26, 2022
VIA E-MAIL fElizabeth.Thornhill(a,cityofrc.usl
Honorable Francisco Oaxaca, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Proposed Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072;
January 26, 2022 Planning Commission, Agenda Item No. D1.
Dear Chair Oaxaca and Members of the Planning Commission:
We write on behalf of our client, Richland, in support of the extension of the above-
referenced Tentative Map (the "Extension Request") for a proposed residential development of
358 homes (the "Project"). Although the Planning Commission has approved every prior
extension request as well as a litigation stay,Staff nonetheless recommends denial of the Extension
Request arguing that the Project is not consistent with the General Plan update adopted on
December 15, 2021 and claiming that Richland has not been diligent in satisfying the conditions
of approval. As detailed below, Staff s position is not supported by the facts or the law. We
respectfully ask the Planning Commission to approve the Extension Request!
1. Background
The Tentative Map was approved by the City Council in 2004. Implementation of the
Project was delayed by a lawsuit, the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as
the lengthy and costly process of obtaining necessary regulatory approvals from resource agencies.
In 2018, the City was in the midst of a new effort to master plan an area adjacent to the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan area where the Project site is located. As requested, Richland
worked collaboratively with the City and community stakeholders in this process. Specifically,
Richland spent 24 months and over $1,024,000 in planning, engineering, studies, workshops, and
presentations in developing a new concept plan for the site known as The Trails. Unfortunately,
1 At the outset,we apologize for the lateness of our letter,but Richland does not have any record
of receiving any written notice of this meeting as required by state and local law. Additionally,
this request is submitted in full reservation of Richland's rights that the Final Map was properly
filed for approval and any subsequently-needed action can occur after filing of the map and/or that
the Tentative Map is automatically extended by operation of law for three years due to Richland's
expenditures on off-site improvements. (Government Code § 66452.6(a), (d).)
Exhibit B
Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 455 Market Street, Suite 1870
San Francisco, CA 94105 1 650-263-7900 1 Fax 650-263-7901 2783/030725-0001
Orange County I Palo Alto I San Francisco I www.rutan.com 17421193.3a01/26/22
RUTAN
RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP
Honorable Francisco Oaxaca, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
January 26, 2022
Page 2
the planning vision that was ultimately embraced by City Staff was more appropriate for flat land
than the Project site which has over 250 feet of vertical elevation change from top to bottom.
After countless emails, calls and meetings to discuss how the existing hillside topography
dictates how the site can be developed, Richland could not make headway on the issue and get to
a mutual understanding with City Staff. In or around October 2020, Richland decided that it was
time to pivot back to the originally approved Project, which the City had continuously supported
through its granting of various extension requests.
Richland spent the past 14 months and $2,653,000 preparing the Final Map and Grading
and Improvement Plans and processed them through the City and outside agencies. Richland has
already received approvals on several of the plan sets and has processed new regulatory permits
through federal and state agencies. Richland has acquired offsite right-of-way and easements for
construction of future infrastructure to service the project and complete the road gap on Wilson
Avenue. Richland has successfully processed the annexation of the Project site into the City.
Additionally, multiple community facilities districts have been formed for the long term
maintenance and facilities financing for the Project.
Since the approval of the Tentative Map,Richland has expended approximately$3,543,000
in complying with the Tentative Map conditions of approval and processing the Final Map,which
includes $341,000 in payments to the City for processing. This is on top of the $22,735,000 in
land acquisition costs for the Project site and conservation land and the more than$1,024,000 spent
on feasibility studies and related analysis for The Trails.
2. Staffs Recommendation to Deny the Extension Request Conflicts with the
Law.
Staff claims that the Extension Request should be denied because the Project is not
consistent with the General Plan Update approved on December 15, 2021, i.e., less than a month
before the expiration of the Tentative Map. However,as a matter of law,General Plan consistency
cannot be used as a basis to deny extension of an already-approved subdivision map; General Plan
consistency findings are made in connection with approval of the tentative map and are thereafter
legally binding on that map. Even if plan consistency were required, the Project remains fully
consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and the low and very low residential zoning
districts applicable to the Project site.
In El Patio v. Permanent Rent Control Board (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 915, the Second
Appellate District overturned an agency's conditional approval of a map extension request on an
issue not related to the timing of the map. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal reasoned
as follows:
2783/030725-0001
17421193.3 a01/26/22
RUTAN
RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP
Honorable Francisco Oaxaca, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
January 26, 2022
Page 3
[Government Code] section 66452.6 expressly permits an extension only as to
`time.' There is no provision which suggests that the legislative body or advisory
body is to reconsider its findings under section 66474 when granting an extension
of time and indeed, the requirements for notice upon approval of a tentative map
. . . would make such a result unworkable." (110 Cal.App.3d at 928 [emphasis
added].)
(Accord Bodega Bay Concerned Citizens v. County of Sonoma(2005) 125 Cal.AppAth 1061, 1068
["Once a tentative map is approved, the county's discretion to deny an extension of the map is
limited, and involves only a determination of the length of time to be granted."].)
Government Code Section 66474 lists the grounds for denial of a tentative map. Among
those findings is inconsistency with the general plan. The El Patio court stated plainly and
unmistakably that an agency cannot reconsider its general plan consistency findings when granting
an extension of time for an already approved tentative map. Yet, Staff s recommendation for
denial—largely based on the Project's alleged inconsistencies with the General Plan update—does
just that.
In Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644,the Supreme Court held that
approval of a final map in substantial compliance with a tentative map is a ministerial act. In that
case, a general plan had been updated between approval of the tentative map and the final map.
The board's action approving the final map was challenged on the grounds of inconsistency with
the new general plan. The California Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the
purpose of the Subdivision Map Act provisions requiring approval of a final map that is in
substantial compliance with a tentative map is:
to confirm that the date when the tentative map comes before the governing body
for approval is the crucial date when that body should decide whether to permit the
proposed subdivision. Once the tentative map is approved, the developer often
must expend substantial sums to comply with the conditions attached to that
approval. These expenditures will result in the construction of improvements
consistent with the proposed subdivision, but often inconsistent with alternative
uses of the land. Consequently it is only fair to the developer and to the public
interest to require the governing body to render its discretionary decision whether
and upon what conditions to approve the proposed subdivision when it acts on the
tentative map. (22 CaDd at 655-656.)
The fact that the tentative map is the crucial date for the general plan consistency
determination and imposition of conditions is likewise reflected in the statute. Government Code
Section 66474.2 states that in deciding whether to approve or conditionally approve a tentative
2783/030725-0001
17421193.3 a01/26/22
RUTAN
RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP
Honorable Francisco Oaxaca, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
January 26, 2022
Page 4
map, "the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the
date the local agency has determined that the application is complete . . .."
Further, courts have ruled against agencies that have refused to grant permit extensions in
similar circumstances. In Community Development Commission v. City of Fort Bragg(1988)
204 Cal.App.3d 1124, the Court of Appeal overturned a city's rejection of an extension request
when the developer had shown a good faith intent to proceed with the use through securing
financing,purchasing the property, hiring architects and engineers, and submitting building plans
for plan check review. The sums expended by Richland here—over $25 million—dwarf the
approximately $200,000 in expenditures referenced in the Fort Bragg case. Moreover, the denial
of an extension request would be reviewed by a court under the independent judgment test and
not the substantial evidence test. (Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth
1519.)
Denial of the Extension Request would also result in the denial of a housing development
project. Under the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), the City may only lawfully deny a
housing development project if it finds that "(A) The housing development project would have a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety . . . [and] (B) There is no feasible method
to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower
density." (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1).) The proposed resolution for denial of the Extension Request
does not contain either of these requisite findings nor would such findings be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, as required. In California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education
Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, the Court of Appeal recently ruled that an
agency violated the HAA by denying a housing project based on subjective policies similar to the
ones cited by Staff in its report(and the proposed resolution) here.
The City approved every other extension request submitted by Richland. In the last such
extension granted in August 2019, Staff cited Richland's diligence in satisfying the conditions of
approval. (Staff Report for August 14, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, p. 4.) Moreover, it
our understanding that the City has not denied any other map extension requests, at least in the last
30-plus years. Staff s recommendation for denial of the Extension Request thus raises issues of
arbitrary and irrational action and disparate treatment. (See, e.g.,Herrington v. County of Sonoma
(9th Cir. 1987) 834 F.2d 1488 [denial of subdivision violated owner's due process rights given
evidence that county's general plan/subdivision inconsistency determination was irrational and
arbitrary and aimed at defeating particular development project] and Del Monte Dunes,Ltd. v. City
of Monterey(9th Cir. 1990)920 F.2d 1496 [allegation that city arbitrarily and unreasonably limited
use and development of property and set aside open space for public use, whereas owners of
comparable properties were not subject to these conditions and restrictions states viable equal
protection claim].)
2783/030725-0001
17421193.3 a01/26/22
RUTAN
RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP
Honorable Francisco Oaxaca, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
January 26, 2022
Page 5
In short, we urge the Planning Commission to comply with the law by granting the
Extension Request.
3. Staffs Recommendation to Deny the Extension Request Is Not Supported
by the Facts.
The Final Map was submitted for approval on March 5,2021 and has been through multiple
rounds of plan check review by City Engineering Staff. Comments from Staff were delayed and/or
augmented due to the retirement of Associate Engineer Matt Addington. Mr. Addington had
approved the plans with final corrections before his retirement. Unfortunately his retirement
resulted in the plans being sent out to a new plan checker who had new comments. In December
2021,Richland provided an Improvement Agreement and bonds for public improvements(on-site
and off-site)to the City.
The fifth resubmittal of the Final Map was provided to the City on January 7, 2022. On
January 11, 2022—the day before the Tentative Map was set to expire—City Engineer Justin
Welday sent a letter indicating corrections needed to the Final Map.2 In his letter, Mr. Welday
cited five Tentative Map conditions that he claimed had not been satisfied and would need to be
rectified prior to Final Map approval.
In our response letter dated January 12, 2022, we explained how the Tentative Map
conditions had already been satisfied through establishment of Community Facilities District
2017-01 (Engineering Division Condition No. 1) or, as payment of fees, were not required to be
satisfied until prior to permit issuance (e.g.,Mitigation Measures AQ-11,AQ-13, and TT-I). (See
approved Mitigation Monitoring Program; see also Government Code § 66007.)
One of the conditions cited by Mr. Welday, Mitigation Measure B-1, requires Richland to
transfer 147.7 acres of land to a City-approved conservation entity (the "Conservation Land") or,
if such land cannot be acquired, "deposit the equivalent mitigation cost of$10,000 per developable
acre"with such an entity(the "Conservation Fee").
The City has informed Richland that the only approved conservation entity is the Inland
Empire Resource Conservation District ("IERCD"). Richland owns the Conservation Land and
attempted to transfer it to the IERCD. IERCD will not accept the Conservation Land unless certain
off-site access easements to it are secured from the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
("LADWP").
2 Pursuant to City Code Section 16.18.080, such a letter indicates that the Final Map can be
approved subject to corrections.
2783/030725-0001
17421193.3 a01/26/22
RUTAN
RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP
Honorable Francisco Oaxaca, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
January 26, 2022
Page 6
Despite numerous meetings, telephone calls, and emails over the past several months,
LADWP continues to insist on a License Agreement approach to solve the access needs, which is
unacceptable to IERCD. Richland representatives elevated this issue through the ranks at LADWP
and most recently discussed it with the General Manager, Marty Adams, and Assistant General
Manager, Nancy Sutley, to urge them to grant an Easement Agreement instead of a short-term
License Agreement and provided a draft of such an agreement for LADWP's consideration. Thus,
despite exercising good faith efforts,Richland has thus far been unable to secure the off-site access
rights requested by IERCD and thus to convey the Conservation Land to IERCD.
Because off-site access to the Conservation Land could not be acquired, Richland chose to
satisfy Condition B-1 through the alternative means of compliance: depositing the Conservation
Fee with IERCD. In total, the Conservation Fee amounts to $1,447,000. While these funds must
be used to purchase and manage mitigation lands, nothing in the condition states that the funds
must be used to purchase the Conservation Land or a similar-sized amount of land or that these
funds alone must be sufficient to purchase any land. Indeed, it is not uncommon for in lieu fees
such as these to be combined from several projects to achieve the mitigation purpose.
On January 11,2022,the City Attorney informed Craig Cristina of Richland that if IERCD
accepts the Conservation Fee, this condition will be deemed satisfied. Mr. Cristina phoned and
emailed IERCD Staff and their counsel about accepting payment. Mr. Cristina physically drove
to IERCD's office on January 11, 2022 with a check for the Conservation Fee in hand. IERCD's
offices were closed. Mr. Cristina drove to IERCD's counsel's office on January 12, 2022. When
he arrived, IERCD's attorneys would not accept the check.
In a January 12, 2022 email, IERCD's counsel wrote that his client would not accept the
Conservation Fee because the City Manager and City Attorney have told them that the "money
comes attached with obligations to purchase 147.7 acres and [management of] those acres . . ....
(A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Nothing in the express
terms of Condition B-1—which simply requires deposit of$10,000 per acre with a City-approved
entity—supports such a construction.
If IERCD will not accept the Conservation Land and IERCD will also not accept the
Conservation Fee (due to a City construction of Mitigation Measure B-1 that conflicts with the
plain terms), it is impossible for Richland to comply with this condition and its performance could
be excused as a matter of law. (See, e.g., Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho
Cucamonga (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1335 [contract requiring dedication of conservation
land to plaintiff to satisfy Mitigation Measure 13I0-1 excused due to City's rejection of plaintiff as
a qualified conservation entity, an implied condition to defendant's performance]; Government
Code § 66462.5 [map condition requiring construction or installation of off-site improvements
waived if neither agency nor subdivider has sufficient title or interest in land at time final map is
filed with the agency]; and Munns v. Stenman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 543, 552 [to be valid,
2783/030725-0001
17421193.3 a01/26/22
RUTAN
RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP
Honorable Francisco Oaxaca, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
January 26, 2022
Page 7
condition must be capable of performance by the landowner and not require concerted action by
others over which the owner or developer has no control].) At minimum, and in fairness to
Richland and the good faith efforts it has made over several months to satisfy this condition, the
Extension Request should be granted so that it can attempt to make further attempts to perform.
In sum,Richland has shown diligence in complying with relevant and applicable conditions
of approval. The record would not support the City's findings to the contrary.
In closing,we respectfully ask the Planning Commission to approve the Extension Request.
This is, in fact, the only lawful action the City can take with respect to Richland's request.
Thank for your consideration of Richland's views on this important matter. Please do not
hesitate to contact me or Craig Cristina at (949) 383-4124 with any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Matthew D. Francois
MDF:sb
cc: Craig Cristina, Senior Vice President-Land Entitlement, Richland
Matthew R. Burris, Deputy City Manager/Interim Planning Director
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
David Eoff, Senior Planner
2783/030725-0001
17421193.3 a01/26/22
E x hibit A
From:Ward Simmons [mailto:Ward.Simmons@bbklaw.comj
Sent: Wednesday,January 12, 2022 2:01 PM
To: 'Craig Cristina' <ccristina@rich landcommunities.com>; Mandy Parkes<mparkes@iercd.org>
Cc: Francois, Matthew<MFrancois@rutan.com>; Jessica Toohey<jtoohey@ rich landcommunities.com>
Subject: RE: Tract 16072 - Mitigation Fee
Hi Craig: Sorry to cut our call short, but had incoming call from Mandy. She plans to respond to this email
and may do so even before you get my email. Consistently the message Mandy has been getting from the
City, including the City Manager and the City Attorney, is the money comes attached with obligations to
purchase 147.7 acres and the manage those acres, which cannot be done on $1 OK per acre. This is an issues
between Richland and the City, and IERCD awaits for any resolution you may reach with the City. Thanks,
Ward
RESOLUTION NO. 22-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TIME EXTENSION
DRC2022-00020, A REQUEST FOR A SIXTH ONE (1) YEAR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP (SUBTT16072) TO SUBDIVIDE 150.79 ACRES LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA
AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE (APNs: 1087-081-12, -19, -20, -21, -22, -
23, and -24) INTO 358 LOTS IN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) AND VERY LOW (UP TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC
PLAN; MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND MAKING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA AND DETERMINATIONS THAT NO
FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED
A. Recitals.
1. Golden Meadowland, LLC, filed an application for a sixth one-year extension of time
for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in
this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On June 16, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-206, approving
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 subject to specific conditions with an expiration date of June
16, 2007.
3. On June 13, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 07-26 approving
a 1-year extension of time subject to specific conditions with an expiration date of June 16, 2008.
4. On May 28, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-25 approving
a second 1-year extension of time subject to specific conditions with an expiration date of June
16, 2009.
5. From July 2008 to July 2013, the State Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1185,
Assembly Bill 333, Assembly Bill 208 and Assembly Bill 116 automatically extending the life of
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 for a total of 7 years to June 16, 2016.
6. On June 22, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 16-42 approving
a third 1-year extension of time subject to specific conditions with an expiration date of June 16,
2017.
7. On June 14, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17-64 approving
a fourth 1-year extension of time subject to specific conditions with an expiration date of June 16,
2018.
8. On June 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-24 approving
a fifth 1-year extension of time subject to specific conditions with an expiration of June 16, 2019.
9. On July 16, 2004, the Spirit of the Sage Council filed a petition for writ of mandate
against the City of Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCVRS
Exhibit C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 2
081847), to which the applicant was named as a party of interest. The Spirit of the Sage Council
challenged the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. A settlement agreement was
reached between Spirit of the Sage Council and the applicant on August 12, 2005. The total
number of days between the writ of mandate filing petition and the settlement agreement was 392
days. Per Government Code Section 66452.6(c), the three-year term of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16072 did not include the 392-day period during which the lawsuit was pending. On
August 14, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 19-49, approving the 392-
day stay of time pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6(c) and extending Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT16072 to July 12, 2020.
10. On January 1, 2021, Assembly Bill 1561 became effective, automatically extending
the life of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 for 18 months to January 12, 2022.
11. On January 26, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the application and continued said hearing to February 9, 2022.
12. On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed continued
public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
13. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on February 9, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to 150.79 acres located on the north side of Wilson
Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue; and
b. The land use, General Plan designation, and Zoning designation of the project
site and surrounding properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant land Traditional Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential2,3
Low (L) Residentia12,3
Power line corridor General Open Space and Utility Corridor(UC)
North Facilities
Vacant land 1 ) Traditional Neighborhood Low(L) Residentia12
approved for or 269 269 lots)
Cucamonga Valley Water General Open Space and
South District CVWD facility Facilities Very Low (VL) Residential'
Vacant land Neighborhood Center
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 3
Vacant land (SUBTT18908 Low(L) Residential2
East approved for 21 lots) Traditional Neighborhood
Vacant land Very Low (VL) Residential2
West Single-family residences Suburban Neighborhood Low (L) Residential2
Very Low
1 - Etiwanda Specific Plan; 2— Etiwanda North Specific Plan; 3—the land use designations and zoning are
divided by the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault Zone
C. The application proposed to extend the life of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072,
a proposed subdivision of 358 lots for single-family residential development, with a gross
density of 2.38 dwelling units per acre.
3. California Environmental Quality Act Findings.
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
local CEQA Guidelines, City staff has considered the potential environmental impacts of the sixth
one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 (the "Project"). City staff has
also reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16072 and certified by the City Council on June 16, 2007, including the impacts and
mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department has determined that the Project and the circumstances under which the
Project is undertaken do not involve substantial changes which will result in new significant
environmental effects, and that the Project does not involve new information of substantial
importance which shows that the Project will have significant effects not discussed in the prior
FEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 and
the sixth one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 are adequately
addressed by the prior FEIR, and the mitigation measures contained in the prior FEIR will reduce
those impacts to a level that is less than significant.
b. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed City staff's
determination, and based upon the whole record before it, and its independent review and
judgment, finds that that the Project, is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to the
Guidelines because:
(1) The Project and the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
do not involve substantial changes which will result in new significant environmental effects, and
that the Project does not involve new information of substantial importance which shows that the
Project will have significant effects not discussed in the prior FEIR; and
(2) All potential environmental impacts associated with Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16072 and the sixth one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 are
adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, and the mitigation measures contained in the prior FEIR
will reduce those impacts to a level that is less than significant.
C. The custodian of records for the prior FEIR, and all other materials that constitute
the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission determination is based, is the
Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for
public review in the Planning Department located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California 91730.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 4
4. Findings for Denial of Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. 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 extension of time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 should
be denied because (1) there is substantial evidence in the record that the applicant has not been
diligent in processing the final map for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 and (2) Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT16072 is no longer consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and
the design or improvement of the proposed Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 is not consistent
with the applicable provisions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan for the following
reasons:
(1) The previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 is not
consistent with the current land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood and fails to meet
relevant policies of the current General Plan, as summarized below and in the Planning
Commission staff report dated January 26, 2022:
a) Land Use Designation: The Traditional Neighborhood designation is
intended promote traditional pedestrian-oriented neighborhood patterns
using a mix of low and low-medium density residential. The development
pattern is intended to conform to the natural terrain, using minimal grading in
order to preserve the natural landforms of the hillside areas. Development
patterns are also guided by strong access and connectivity, incorporating
streets that are interconnected with a grid network and human-scaled
walkable blocks. This is typically achieved by incorporating various
pedestrian connections from neighborhood streets, providing bike lanes
along collector streets, or by using well-designed streets that include
landscape enhancements that define the public spaces. Following are
requirements from the General Plan for the Traditional Neighborhood
Designation:
• "Lots, blocks, and streets conform to the natural terrain, minimizing grading
and preserving natural landforms."
Inconsistent: Tract 16072 plans for mass grading and the creation of large
fill slopes along Wilson Avenue and East Avenue.
• "Streets are highly interconnected with a grid network pattern and human-
scale blocks."
Inconsistent: Tract 16072 provides for extremely limited connection with
just one connection on Wilson Avenue and one connection on East
Avenue. The vast majority of the streets are dead ends (six cul-de-sacs in
total), providing for the creation of three very large blocks.
• "Open space is in the form of neighborhood parks for active and passive
recreational use for all ages and other small open spaces such as plazas
and squares at mixed-use and commercial areas."
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 5
Inconsistent: Tract 16072 provides no open space beyond landscaped
slopes. No open space is provided in the form of neighborhood parks. Note
that Tract 16072 is a component of a larger development concept that
consolidates open space within a fault hazard zone, a trailhead, and an
equestrian center. Open space is also not provided in the form of
neighborhood parks as a part of the larger development concept
b) General Plan Policies. The project fails to meet relevant policies of the
General Plan as discussed in the following table.
Applicable Policy Analysis
LC-1.1 Complete Places. Ensure Neither Tract 16072 nor the larger
that a broad range of recreational, Richland-Tracy-Chen development
commercial, educational, arts, provides for easily accessible
cultural, and civic amenities are amenities. Limited open space is
nearby and easily accessible to anticipated, access is limited, and no
residents and workers in each civic or commercial uses are
neighborhood and each provided for available in the vicinity.
employment district.
LC-1.4 Connectivity and Mobility. Tract 16072 does not provide for a
Work to complete a network of network of pedestrian friendly
pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets. Streets primarily end in cul-
streets and trails, designed in de-sacs, there are only two
concert with adjacent land uses, connections outside of the Tract to
the larger street network, and blocks
are very long with indirect
perimeters.
LC-3.5 Efficient Growth. Manage While a current Fiscal Impact
growth in a manner that is fiscally Analysis was not prepared (nor
sustainable, paced with the would typically be required for a map
availability of infrastructure, and extension), since this map was
protects and/or enhances approved 18 years ago, the City has
community value. Discourage found that large-lot single family
growth and development that will development projects are typically
impact the City. not fiscally sustainable as such
projects tend to struggle to generate
sufficient revenue to offset the
corresponding increase in municipal
services.
LC-4.2 Complete Neighborhoods. Tract 16072 is designed as a limited
Strive to ensure that all new access suburban residential
neighborhoods, and infill subdivision. No services are in
development within or adjacent to walking distance nor are any
existing neighborhoods, are services proposed as part of this
complete and well-structured such Tract. Tract 16072 is part of a larger
that the physical layout, and land project that provides limited open
use mix promote walking to space amenities generally clustered
services, biking and transit use, within the fault hazard setback zone.
and have the following Due to the large-block, limited
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 6
characteristics. access street and block network,
• Be organized into human-scale, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
walkable blocks, with a high level of would be indirect. Tract 16072 is not
connectivity for pedestrians, organized in relation to an activity
bicycles, and vehicles. center. There are no goods and
• Be organized in relation to one or services within walking distance of
more focal activity centers, such as the site. Lot sizes are generally
a park, school, civic building, or uniform with limited variability,
neighborhood retail, such that most precluding diversity in housing types,
homes are no further than one- sizes, or affordability.
quarter mile.
• Require development patterns
such that 60 percent of dwelling
units are within 1/2-mile walking
distance to neighborhood goods
and services.
• Provide as wide a diversity of
housing styles and types as
possible, and appropriate to the
existing neighborhood context.
• Provide homes with entries and
windows facing the street, with
driveways and garages generally
deemphasized in the streetscape
composition.
LC-4.3 Connected Neighborhoods. Tract 16072 does not make all
Require that each new increment possible connections. It provides
of residential development make just two connections to Wilson and
all possible street, trail, and open East Avenues, providing far fewer
space connections to existing connections than is appropriate for
adjoining residential or commercial good pedestrian and public safety
development and provide for future access.
connections into any adjoining
parcels.
LC-4.4 Balanced Neighborhoods. Tract 16072 lot sizes are generally
Within the density ranges and uniform with limited variability,
housing types defined in this precluding diversity in housing
General Plan, promote a range of types, sizes, or affordability that
housing and price levels within would help accommodate diverse
each neighborhood to ages and incomes.
accommodate diverse ages and
incomes.
LC-4.5 Equitable Housing Tract 16072 lot sizes are generally
Opportunities and Diversity of uniform with limited variability,
Housing Types. Within the density precluding diversity in housing
ranges and housing types defined types, sizes, or affordability that
in this General Plan, promote a would help accommodate diverse
diversity of land tenure ages and incomes. Based on
opportunities to provide a range of proposed lots sizes, all units are
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 7
choices on the types of property expected to be for sale within a fairly
estate available and ready access limited band of higher pricing.
to an equitable array of
opportunities at a variety of price
points. For projects five acres or
larger, require that diverse housing
types be provided and intermixed
rather than segregated by dwelling
type.
LC-4.6 Block Length. Require new Block lengths far exceed both the
neighborhoods to be designed with 600-foot length and 1800 foot
blocks no longer than 600 feet nor perimeter requirement. No mid-
a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. block connections are provided. For
Exceptions can be made if mid- example, if Tract 16072 were to
block pedestrian and bicycle meet this standard, there would be
connections are provided, or if the at least one additional connection
neighborhood is on the edge of on Wilson Avenue and at least two
town and is intended to have a rural additional connections on East
or semi-rural design character Avenue.
LC-4.7 Intersection Density. With only two connections to the
Require new neighborhoods to surrounding street network and one
provide high levels of intersection additional proposed connection to
density. Neighborhood Center and future tracts, at 150 acres and under
Semi-Rural Neighborhoods should the most permissive metric of 200
provide approximately 400 intersections per square mile, Tract
intersections per square mile. map 16072 should have at least 46
Suburban Neighborhoods should intersections. Tract 16072 has
provide at least 200 intersections twelve intersections. Tract 16072
per square mile. fails to meet the intersection density
requirements.
LC-4.12 Conventional Suburban Tract 16072 is a conventional
Neighborhood Design. Discourage suburban design with long perimeter
the construction of new residential walls, discontinuous cul-de-sac
neighborhoods that are street patterns, long block lengths,
characterized by sound walls on single building and housing types,
any streets, discontinuous cul-de- and lack of walking or biking access
sac street patterns, long block to parks, schools, goods, and
lengths, single building and services and represents an
housing types, and lack of walking approach that the General Plan
or biking access to parks, schools, discourages.
goods, and services.
LC-4.13 Neighborhood Edges. Tract 16072 would not provide for
Encourage neighborhood edges neighborhood edges along street
along street corridors to be corridors with active frontages. The
characterized by active frontages, neighborhood edges are
whether single-family or multifamily characterized by long walls with
residential, or by ground floor, landscaping without any midblock
neighborhood-service non- access points.
residential uses. Where this is not
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 8
possible due to existing
development patterns or
envisioned streetscape character,
neighborhood edges shall be
designed based on the following
policies:
• Strongly discourage the
construction of new gated
communities except in Semi-Rural
Neighborhoods.
• Allow the use of sound walls to
buffer new neighborhoods from
existing sources of noise pollution
such as railroads and limited
access roadways. Consider sound
walls as sites for public art.
• Prohibit the use of sound walls to
buffer residential areas from
arterial or collector streets. Instead
design approaches such as
building setbacks, landscaping and
other techniques shall be used.
• In the case where sound walls
might be acceptable, require
pedestrian access points to
improve access from the
Neighborhoods to nearby
commercial, educational, and
recreational amenities, activity
centers and transit stops.
• Discourage the use of signs to
distinguish one residential project
from another. Strive for
neighborhoods to blend
seamlessly into one another. If
provided, gateways should be
landmarks and urban design focal
points, not advertisements for
home builders.
LC-6.2 Small Scale Centers. Neighborhood centers were always
Support one or more very small- envisioned in the Etiwanda area in
scale Centers on well-located previous General Plans and Specific
under-developed parcels within Plans within or adjacent to this tract.
walking, biking, or horseback riding Tract 16072 does not provide any
distance of neighborhoods in Alta small-scale centers that would help
Loma and Etiwanda. meet this policy and increase
amenities in northern Etiwanda.
OS-1.1 Equitable Access to Parks. Tract 16072's current design does
Strive to ensure that at least one not provide open space or parks for
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 9
park or other public open space is new homes. While the broader plan
within safe, comfortable walk from intends to use the existing fault zone
homes and jobs, without crossing as open space, the cul-de-sac
major streets except at signalized circulation and the lack of adequate
crossings. Equitable access to pedestrian circulation throughout the
parks should be determined based site will make it challenging to reach
on the fundamental character of the common area without the use of
the place (rural, suburban, urban) a car or without having to take a
and corresponding transportation more circuitous route by walking.
infrastructure.
OS-1.5 Design for Safety. Require While Tract 16072 does not provide
the use of Crime Prevention any open space, it is designed to
Through Environmental Design abut an open space feature. The
(CPTED) design techniques such homes proposed for this edge are
as providing clear lines of sight, not designed with CPTED best
appropriate lighting, and practices. Rather, the new homes
wayfinding signs to ensure that would turn their backs to the open
parks are safe and easy to space and not provide eyes on the
navigate. space.
OS-1.6 New Development. Ensure As discussed above Tract 16072
that new residential and does not provide open space. The
nonresidential developments larger project does but not in a
provide adequate on-site manner laid out in the General Plan.
recreational and open space
amenities consistent with
applicable General Plan
Designations, and the needs of
new development.
MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement Tract 16072 does not implement
innovative street and intersection any innovative street and
designs to maximize efficiency and intersection designs as required by
safety in the city. Use traffic this policy.
calming tools to assist in
implementing complete street
principles. Possible tools include
roundabouts, curb extensions, high
visibility crosswalks, and separated
bicycle infrastructure
MA-2.4 Street Connectivity. Tract 16072 does not provide
Require connectivity and connectivity, accessibility, or a land
accessibility to a mix of land uses use mix that would assist residents
that meets residents' daily needs with meeting their daily needs within
within walking distance. walking distance.
MA-2.10 Block Pattern. Require Tract 16072 arranges streets in a
development projects to arrange discontinuous cul-de-sac-based
streets in an interconnected block block pattern that concentrates
pattern, so that pedestrians, travel to two access points and is
bicyclists, and drivers are not inconsistent with this policy.
forced onto arterial streets for inter-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 10
or intra- neighborhood travel.
MA-5.1 Land Use Supporting While Tract 16072 was evaluated
Reduced VMT. Work to reduce under CEQA prior to requirements
VMT through land use planning, for evaluating VMT and no tract-
enhanced transit access, localized specific analysis was prepared, the
attractions, and access to non- City has found that traditional
automotive modes. development patterns as envisioned
and described by the General Plan
can reduce VMT by up to 15%
below VMT levels of conventional
suburban designs such as Tract
16072.
H-1.1 RHNA Requirement. Tract 16072 does not provide a
Encourage the development of a meaningful range of housing types,
wide range of housing options, options, or affordability.
types, and prices that will enable
the City to achieve its share of the
RHNA.
RC-1.6 Hillside Grading. Grading Tract 16072 relies on a mass
of hillsides shall be minimized, grading approach and does not
following natural landform to the follow the natural landform to any
maximum extent possible. great degree, resulting in large fill
Retaining walls shall be slopes on Wilson Avenue and East
discouraged and if necessary Avenue.
screened from view.
S-3.2 Fire Protection Plans.All new Tract 16072 does not have a current
development, redevelopment, and Fire Protection Plan that reflects
major remodels in the WUIFA will current Fire District policies and
require the preparation of Fire current best practices. Additionally,
Protection Plans (FPPs) to reduce the 2014 Fire Protection Plan has
fire threat, in accordance with Fire not been analyzed or updated
District policies and procedures against State policies, requirements,
or best practices.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 above,
the Planning Commission hereby denies DRC2022-00020, a request for a sixth 1-year extension
of time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Bryan Dopp, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 22-04
TIME EXTENSION DRC2022-00020 (TENTATIVE MAP SUBTT16072)
GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC
February 9, 2022
Page 11
ATTEST:
Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary
I, Matthew R. Burris,AICP, LEED AP, 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 9th day of February 2022, by the following vote-
to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: