HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-036 - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2022-036
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 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
INDUSTRIALNVAREHOUSE 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. The applicant, 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC, filed an application for the approval of
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. 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
Environmental Impact Report (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 Assembly Bill (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 responses 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.
Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 1 of 7
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.
9. On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
adopted Resolution No. 22-002 approving the application and making findings in support of its
decision.
10. On February 17, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision approving the application.
11. On April 20, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a
duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing
on that date, and adopted this Resolution certifying the Final EIR, making findings pursuant to
CEQA, and adopting an MMRP. On that same date, and by separate Resolution No. 2022-035,
the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's approval of the
application and made findings in support thereof.
12. 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. This 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 City Council during
the above-referenced public hearing on April 20, 2022, including written and oral staff reports and
public testimony, the City Council 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:
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
Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 2 of 7
•
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.
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 City Council 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.
Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 3 of 7
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. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 4 of 7
I
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 2022.
L. ennis Michael, Ma or
ATTEST:
ice . Reynolds, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of
April 2022.
AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott
NOES: None
ABSENT: SPAGNOLO
ABSTAINED: None
Executed this 21st day of April, 2022, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ani . Reynolds, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 5 of 7
ExhibitA
CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 6 of 7
Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Resolution No. 2022-036 - Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A
CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT
for
Jersey Industrial Complex Project
SCH No. 2021060608
Prepared for:
„cr.,�
�: �
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.
•
II TABLE OF CONTENTS
RANCIIO' -
CUCAMONOA
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
(jANcuo
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CUGAMONGA
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 5. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT
R cxo
CUCAAIONGA ..
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
1►
CHOFINDINGS OF FACT
RAN
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
40I _ .
ts, I FINDINGS OF FACT
R cnio
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
Via►
RjANCI10
FINDINGS OFFACT
COCAMONGA -
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 91.730. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT
jjANCFio . .
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 strikethrough
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
cu� FINDINGS OF FACT
CucnMoncn
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
Irf
1 FINDINGS OF FACT
RANcno -
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
FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONCA
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
f I - FINDINGS OF FACT
RANciio'
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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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
•
1 1 FINDINGS OF FACT
',RANCHO
UCAMONGA
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
I 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
imiNk
IFINDINGS OF FACT
Rvcxo
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 42101.
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 toDEIR 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
•
401 ,
FINDINGS OF FACT
jtANC110
CUCMIDNGA
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
RAMC FINDINGS OF FACT
',RANCH
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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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
FINDINGS OF FACT
RANCHO'
CUCAMONCA
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
rf
FINDINGS OF FACT
,RANCHOUCAMONOA
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 watersources,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
FINDINGS OF FACT
RANc"o
G'UUANUNGA,
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 1.00-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
17
January2022
it
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
r FINDINGS OF FACT
jjnnciio
CLiCAMONGA - ..
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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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 Alquist 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 referto DEIR page 4-62.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 19 .
jjnNCHO 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
rf
FINDINGS OF FACT
RANCHO
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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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
AIN
r I FINDINGS OF FACT
,,RANCHO
CUCAMONOA .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
jZnnGlw FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCANIONGA
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
IFINDINGS OF FACT
RANc7Io"
L'UCAAIONGA ...
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 5-1,9.
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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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
IFINDINGS OF FACT
RANCIIo
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
(CalEEMod) 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
t1/2 1 FINDINGS OF FACT
RANCHO -
CUOAMONGA -
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 Projects 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 MM RP. 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
CUCM IONGA
whether nesting would occur or what species would nest on-site, if construction activities occur
between February 1 through August 31st, 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'BIO-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
FINDINGS OF FACT
RANcllo
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
RANCII0 FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAMONCA
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
IFINDINGS OF FACT
RANcFIo
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
AoPPIA
FINDINGS OF FACT
RANCHO
lAUGAMONGA
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 lndians-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 15O64.5(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
At 41.
Fjnncuo
irf
FINDINGS OF FACT
Cuceniona�
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)(I) 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
r, I FINDINGS OF FACT
R NCHO
CUCAAIONGA
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 unavoidableimpact. 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
jjnncuo
FINDINGS OF FACT
CUCAAIONOA
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
FINDINGS OF FACT
RANcIIo
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
CUCAMO?CA.
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
RANciiO 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
January2022 41
jjnncuo
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
•
r I FINDINGS OF FACT
Rnnciio
CUCANONGA .
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'
January2022 43
FINDINGS OF FACT
RANCIIO
CUCM.'ONCA
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 Cal.4th 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
r 1 FINDINGS OF FACT
RANcllo
CUCAMONCA, .. -
3. The DEIR adequately analyzed project alternatives and there are no o 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
EXHIBIT B
FINAL
Jersey Industrial Complex Project
Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCH No. 2021060608
Prepared for:
L% J,(
rrFrrrcr-
, 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.
•
ITABLE OF CONTENTS
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA ..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SECTION 1. 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
jZANC110
CUCAMONGA
This page intentionally left blank.
Jersey Industrial Complex Project Findings of Fact
January 2022 ii
•
MMRP
CUCAMONOA .
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 monitoring/reporting 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
• • • •
jZANcuo MMRP
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
•
•
jtn�cF�o MMRP
CUCAMONGA
• TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
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
ItN,
1 MMRP
RANCII0
CUCAMONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
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
1 MMRP
ltAvcxo
CUCANONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
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
1 MMRP
RANCHO
LAUCANIONGA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
•
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
-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
1
RANCHO MMRP
CucA.MMm cA
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Method of Verified
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
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[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. •
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 . ,
o
1 MMRP
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA .. .
TABLE 1-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Method of Verified •
Monitoring Verification Verification Date/initials
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