The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-06-28 - Agenda Packet - PC-HPCJUNE 289 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Oaxaca Vice Chairman Macias Commissioner Fletcher Commissioner Munoz Commissioner Wimberly B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals embers of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. C1 Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 14. 2017 Page 1 of 6 JUNE 287 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA D. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. D1. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to revoke Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, approved in error on November 9, 2016, for a request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007- 00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues, APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for DRC2007-00951. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO JULY 26, 2017. D2. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00481 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) to allow for the retention of two existing residential structures on site for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15164 which does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Initial Study. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO JULY 26, 2017, Page 2 of 6 JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA D3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20105 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. — A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 82 acres into five (5) parcels located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 6th Street, south of the Metrolink/BNSF rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues - APN: 0209-272-20. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre - Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 2017. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO AN UNSPECIFIED DATE. D4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20073 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. — A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 84 acres into twenty-seven (27) parcels and one (1) lettered lot located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues - APNs: 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre -Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. CONTINUED FROM JUNE14, 2017. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO AN UNSPECIFIED DATE. D5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2017-00482 — GERDAU — A request to modify the conditions of approval specifically related to required public improvements for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009, and Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2013-00992 approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014, for the existing Gerdau Steel Plant in the Heavy Industrial (HI) District located at 12459-B Arrow Route; APN: 0229-131-19. Staff has Page 3 of 6 M JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA found the proposed project to be within the scope of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009, and an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. D6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN - A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet comprised of warehouse and office area for distribution purposes on a 17-acre site in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue - APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D7. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 - JUNG & JUEN, LLP - An appeal of a City Planner decision approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 to operate a drive-thru coffee shop, and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 to reduce the required on -site parking to allow additional food uses related to the prior approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008- 00464 for a 6,484 square foot addition to the Haven Village commercial center located in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue - APN: 201-272-23. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 — Existing Facilities - which covers the operation, permitting and leasing of existing structures and as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — which covers exceptions in land use limitations. E. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES: COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Page 4 of 6 JUNE 28, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA F. ADJOURNMENT The Commission will adjourn to a workshop to be held in the Rains Room to discuss PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2016-00626 — THERALDSON HOSPITALITY. I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 22, 2017 seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Lois J. Schrader Planning Commission Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or Page 5 of 6 JUNE 285 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,662 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Page 6 of 6 Vicinity Map Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting JUNE 289 2017 - I I ------ , - I f 1 1 i d 19t1 3asi -oot Arrc 8 --, -- L !€ LOa. L) = Q 2 tu 2 : i t I c � d I St:��._ i Line i-1! 'ne J r Church D7I Church 4 hill Foothill N 011 d A I Arrow 1 D6 w � _E J � � rsey t w th a 16th w C7 6t Y 1 L ? dth a = _ .. .4th P 7t Meeting Location: D1 & D2 D3 & D4 D5 City Hall/Council Chamber 10600 Civic Center Drive D1: DR MOD REVOCATION DRC2017-00480—BIANE WINERY D2: DR DRC2017-00481—BIANE WINERY D3: SUBTT20105—LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. D4: SUBTT20073—LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. D5: CUP MOD—GERDAU D6: DR DRC2015-00797—RGA D7: APPEAL DRC2017-00437—JUNG & JUEN, LLP --I I- ' 11 -- .. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Oaxaca X Vice Chairman Macias _ A_ Commissioner Fletcher _X_ Commissioner Munoz _X_ Commissioner Wimberly _X_ Additional Staff Present Candyce Burnett, City Planner; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City ManageNEconomic and Community Development; Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Senior Planner, Albert Espinoza, Asst. City Engineer; Dominick Perez, Associate Planner,, Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary, Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals embers of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Kevin Ellis - A resident adjacent to the development at Day Creek and Base Line Road, expressed concern about the additional traffic load anticipated with the proposed project. Don Horvatch - Spoke regarding Item E4 noting his residence is south of the Etiwanda Preserve. He expressed concern that the rest area will be moved from the preserve to next to his house. He also noted that when the house product is proposed he would prefer single -story homes to preserve his views. Page 1 of 18 C1Pg1 JUNE 14, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 24, 2017 C2. Consideration to adopt Adjourned (Workshop) Meeting Minutes of May 24, 2017 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher carried 3-0-1-1 (Oaxaca abstain, Macias absent) to adopt the minutes of May 24, 2017. D. DIRECTOR'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chairman may open the meeting for public input. D1. PROPOSED REVIEW PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT APPLICABLE TO HAUNTED HOUSES IN RESIDENCES/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Dat Tran, assistant planner gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation/copy on file. Commissioner Fletcher asked if haunted houses in the residential district would be enforced by complaint. Mr. Tran said we rely on the applicants to operate within the bounds of the Temporary Use Permit. If they do not then neighbors call the police for enforcement. Commissioner Fletcher said he does not want TUP's issued for this use in residential areas as it allows for big parties and the impacts that come with them. He said in commercial areas he did not think there should be advertising on the internal and no fees for admission. Otherwise he had no objection to them in the commercial areas. Page 2 of 18 C1 Pg 2 JUNE 145 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissioner Wimberly said he would need to see the full process being proposed and statistics of the complaints to determine what we are dealing with before he asks the City to modify what we have. Mr. Tran said he could supply that information to the Commission. Commissioner Munoz agreed with Commissioner Wimberly. He noted no alternatives are noted in the report. He said he would like to see a draft code amendment with alternatives and also have the Police Department and the Fire Department weigh in. Candyce Burnett, City Planner, said part of the purpose was to get the topic in front of the Commission as this has to be a policy discussion and determine if there is even a need to address it. She said it has become an increasing issue in the residential community. She said the holiday is approaching and we brought the report to the Commission to initiate and to give something to think about. She said staff has some ideas and we are asking if we want to recommend excluding this activity from the residential areas altogether. With the increase of these in residential areas there are impacts with traffic, multiple days they are operating producing farther reaching impacts than initially thought. We wanted at least an idea of what the Commission would consider and let us know how to proceed. Commissioner Munoz said allowing this activity in the residential area will cause problems and he felt the need to be proactive. He said he would like to see a draft code amendment with data to back it up. Chairman Oaxaca concurred and said we should look at appropriate locations/ commercial vs non-commercial. He wondered of the City takes on any responsibility if funds are taken for a non-profit and then what happens if those funds are not properly delivered to the non- profit. He said he would like the regulations to be less restrictive initially but increase incrementally as needed. He said standards are necessary with Building and Safety and Fire evaluating the improvements. He asked what the costs would be and said the process should be realistic, otherwise, it would make the permitting impossible and therefore should make the use to be not permitted if that is the case. He added there should not be any admission charges at haunted houses in the residential areas.. The Secretary received and filed the report and the Commission gave general direction to staff to bring back draft amendment language as well as statistics regarding the complaints received. There was some concern among the Page 3 of 18 Ct Pg 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissioners regarding haunted houses in the Residential Districts and they indicated additional controls may be in order overall. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. Ell. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00991 — WECARE DIALYSIS CENTER — The development of a 10,912 square foot medical office building on 1.13 acres in the General Commercial (GC) District, on the east side of Grove Avenue, approximately 500 feet south of Arrow Route, located at 8591 Grove Avenue - APM 0207-222-27. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines as a Class 32 Exemption (CEQA Section 15332) for In -fill Development Projects. CONTINUED FROM MAY 24, 2017. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) Patrick Chiu, said he is the Architect representing the applicant. After summarizing his pride about the project, he said they met all department requirements and they are in agreement with all the conditions. Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to adopt the Resolution of Approval No. 17-63 approving Design Review DRC2015-00991. E2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20073 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. — A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 84 acres into twenty-seven (27) parcels and one (1) lettered lot located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues - APNs: 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre -Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Page 4 of 18 C1 Pg 4 141 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. CONTINUED FROM MAY 24, 2017. Mike Smith, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of the item to the June 28, 2017 meeting to allow time for further discussion of the conditions of approval. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no response, allowed the public hearing to remain open to the June 28, meeting date. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to continue Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073 to June 281^. E3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20105 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. — A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 82 acres into five (5) parcels located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 6th Street, south of the Metrolink/BNSF rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues - APN: 0209-272-20, Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre - Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Mike Smith, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of the item to the June 28, 2017 meeting to allow time for further discussion of the conditions of approval. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no response, allowed the public hearing to remain open to the June 28, meeting date. Commissioner Fletcher asked staff to give an explanation of what lead to the continuance when this comes back. Page 5 of 18 C1Pg5 JUNE 147 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to continue Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073 to June 281^. E4. TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00430 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. - A request for a fourth one-year time extension for a previously approved tentative tract map (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072) to subdivide 150.79 acres into 358 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Residential District, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by City Council in June 16, 2004 by Resolution 04-204 and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Environmental Impact Report, Dominick Perez, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) He said in response to the speaker at the beginning of the meeting (see public comments) that there is no proposed development at this time. He said minor changes were made to the resolution which is on the dais for the Commissioners review. Chairman Oaxaca asked if when this comes back what would be the next step after the tract map. Mr. Perez said if development is proposed prior to the expiration of the map, then that development proposal would proceed to DRC and follow that process on to the Planning Commission for approval. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing. Don Horvatch said that area is just below the preserve and California sage is protected. He said people fill their trucks up with sage and sell it. He asked if it is protected how developers can bulldoze acres of this. Mr. Perez said the sag was considered with the prior impact report. Chairman Oaxaca noted that one mitigation measure is for the developer to buy mitigation lands to compensate for those impacts. Page 6 of 18 C1 Pg 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Joseph Colvane, a member of the Alta Loma Riding Club said the site is in the equestrian overlay. He said that environmentally speaking, things change. He said to keep approving subsequent time extensions since 2004 seems ludicrous. He expressed opposition. Natashia Walton, a local biologist, spoke regarding the removal of the sage. She said she is glad they are doing some mitigation and suggested staff review what consultants looked at to cover all species and what were the protocols and follow-up surveys used as animals move over the years. John Shafer, representing the owner, noted the city is requiring a mitigation land purchase of 335 acres. He said all surveys have been done and all came up negative and they are updated, Chairman Oaxaca closed the public hearing. Chairman Oaxaca stated the only issue before the Commission for consideration is the request to extend map. He said there is the potential future opportunity to comment when/if the project comes forward. Mr. Perez confirmed the time extension is discretionary. Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to adopt Resolution of Approval No. 17-64 approving Time Extension DRC2017-00430 as amended. Items E5-E9 were heard concurrently E5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20042 — NH WEAVER LANE, LLC - A request to subdivide 18.2 acres of land into 26 lots for the purposes of developing 26 single-family residences for a site located on the east side of Carnelian Street and north of Hillside Road in the Very Low (VL) District (.1 — 2 Dwelling Units per Acre), the Hillside Overlay District and the Equestrian Overlay District - APN: 1061-261-01. Related records: Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377, Variance DRC2016-00748, Variance DRC2017-00014 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00376. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Page 7 of 18 C1 Pg 7 14, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA E6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00377—NH WEAVER LANE, LLC - A request for site plan and architectural review of 26 single-family residences on 18.2 acres of land related to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042, located on the east side of Carnelian Street and north of Hillside Road in the Very Low (VL) District (.1 — 2 Dwelling Units per Acre) the Hillside Overlay District and the Equestrian Overlay District - APN: 1061-261-01. Related records: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042, Variance DRC2016- 00748, Variance DRC2017-00014 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00376. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ET ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2016-00748 - NH WEAVER LANE, LLC - A request to reduce the required lot depth of Lots 11 - 15 by approximately 13 feet related to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042 located on the east side of Carnelian Street and north of Hillside Road in the Very Low (VL) District (.1 —2 Dwelling Units per Acre the Hillside Overlay District and the Equestrian Overlay District - APN: 1061-261-01. Related records: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042, Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377, Variance DRC2017-00014 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00376. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E8. ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2017-00014 - NH WEAVER LANE, LLC — A request to reduce the rear yard setback on Lot 16 by approximately 23 feet related Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377, located on the east side of Carnelian Street and north of Hillside Road in the Very Low (VL) District (.1 — 2 Dwelling Units per Acre), the Hillside Overlay District and the Equestrian Overlay District - APN: 1061-261-01. Related records: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042, Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377, Variance DRC2016-00748 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00376. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E9. ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2016-00376 - NH WEAVER LANE, LLC —A request to remove 7 heritage trees related to Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377, located on the east side of Carnelian and north of Hillside Road in the Very Low (VL) Development District (.1 — 2 Dwelling Units per Acre), the Hillside Overlay District and the Equestrian Overlay District-APN: 1061-261-01. Related records: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042. Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377, Variance DRC2016-00748 and Variance DRC2017-00014. The staff report and PowerPoint presentation were delivered by Tabe van der Zwaag (copy on tile) Page 8 of 18 Cl Pg 8 - - - - - - - 7 - - - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissioner Fletcher asked if the streambeds are dry Mr. Van der Zwaag said there is some water during the rainy season and some runoff from public streets. He said most of the runoff is diverted from north of site. Bill Kennedy, representing the applicant, thanked for their assistance and noted there were many obstacles with this project site. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing. An unidentified speaker said he is a 29-year resident. He questioned the limited access and the traffic added to the Maloof property traffic and said he wants a timeline regarding construction. He said the notification sign was too small. He asked what the sale price for the homes will be as he has a concern about property values. Joseph Colvane state he is from the ALRC. He thanked staff and the city for answering their concerns. Natasha Walton, a local -biologist, asked what trees will be removed and/or replaced. Mr. van der Zwaag said a Mimosa tree, 3 Samuel Ash, and 3 Date palms will be removed. He said the trees will be replaced one for one as well as plant 2 trees in the front yard of each residence. Chairman Oaxaca closed the public hearing Bill Kennedy, said they hope to start with the models and be open next summer. He said the prices should start at about 1.2 million. He said they currently plan to be on septic but may do sewer. He said there is a strong interest from potential buyers. Commissioner Fletcher asked for a response to the question about limited access. Mr. Kennedy said the property owner to the south worked with us for special access torhis RV that is located just off the property line. Commissioner Fletcher said with respect to the Trails Advisory Committee, the developer did a great job working with everyone to resolve issues. He said the houses are attractive and at 1.2 million, he did not think the price will lower anyone's property value. Page 9 of 18 Cl Pg 9 14, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissioner Wimberly concurred and said staff worked with the applicants and noted the many moving parts to this project. He said they met all TAC requests and made a special access accommodation for the RV owner. Commissioner Munoz concurred a said it is a good project. Chairman Oaxaca said he was also present for TAC and said the project strikes a good balance with a challenging parcel. Commissioner Fletcher said the Variance requests are reasonable. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, carried 4-0-1 (Macias abstain) to adopt the following Resolutions of Approval: 17-49 approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042; 17-50 approving Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377; 17-52 approving Variance DRC2016-00748; 17-51 approving Variance DRC2017-00014; 17-53 approving Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00376. Items E10-E16 were heard concurrently. See minutes below E10. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00452 — DR HORTON — A request to change the Victoria Community Plan Zoning Designation for 28.4 acres of land at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road from Regionally Related Office/Commercial (RROC) to Mixed Use (MU) in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant buildings totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road — APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final review and action. Ell. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762 —DR HORTON — A request to subdivide 28.4 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant buildings totaling 12,000 Page 10 of 18 C1Pg10 14, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road — APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016- 00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E12. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032 — DR HORTON — A request for a residential condominium subdivision for 380 residential units on 28.4 acres of land in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant buildings totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road —APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016- 00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E13. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00450 — DR HORTON — A request for site plan and architectural review in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant buildings totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road — APN: 1090- 331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E14. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00449 — DR HORTON — A request to operate a bar (Type 70 On Sale General — Restrictive Service) within a hotel in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant buildings totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road — APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map Page 11 of 18 C1Pg11 JUNE 147 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Design Review DRC2016-00450 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016- 00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E15. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00508 — DR HORTON — A request to allow 8 foot combination retaining/freestanding wall heights for a mixed use project in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant buildings totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road —APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 —DR HORTON —A request for a Uniform Sign Program in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant buildings totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road — APN: 1090- 331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Donald Granger, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He said correspondence was received from the County of San Bernardino and California Fish and Wildlife, Natasha Walton (biologist), Grace Aquiar, and Tina Stoner all expressing concerns about the loss of RAFSS, loss of Buckwheat, etc. A letter of support was receive from Kevin Brown, Sr Mr Granger noted the applicant performed 15 studies and had 4 to assess biological impacts. He said Focus studies were done on the San Bernardino Kangaroo rat, DSFLF and the California gnalcatcher. He said the studies also received a peer review from an outside biologist. He said the applicant has read all conditions and there is one condition of concern found on page 416 #13 re: phasing. He said the applicant is requesting to change the condition. Page 12 of 18 C1Pg12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissionei Fletcher noted the hoear park buffets homes to south. He asked if a full east - west boundary design was considered. Mr. Granger said the developer responded to the request for a park. Also, the PD was hesitant to have park extend to the southwest comer of the site because of the potential for nuisance/bad activity could occur there. He said in this proposed configuration, eyes would be on it. Commissioner Fletcher asked how the shared parking for the restaurants would be monitored and if that would affect the restaurant parking. Mr. Granger said there -will be signs posted and possible wording may be added to the CC&Rs-they will have to craft specific signage and language. Commissioner Fletcher asked about the CEQA concerns from the County and State and if the city solely decides on that. Mr. Ghirelli said agencies already had an opportunity to comment on the environmental does. There is no further noticing required at this point. Dan Boyd, VP for DR Horton said the linear park and shared parking agreement would be a recorded document. He summarized the attributes of the project and said staff covered every detail. Chairman Oaxaca opened the public hearing David Maskowich, project biologist for the applicant and holding a Masters in Biology, summarized the results of the biological surveys. He explained the different classification systems now used. Lorena Ponci, a homeowner said we have lost the natural element and there is too much development in the City. It will add 1,000 more vehicles /too aggressive and too noisey. Mr. Ghirelli suggested the following wording for the revised condition noted for the record for the applicant's consideration. He said the city is not committing to approving a development agreement at this time. Page 13 of 18 C1Pg13 VVIVL I'T, LV I / HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA "No more than 65%of the permits for the residential units (247 units) shall be issued unless building permits for the hotel and two restaurant buildings have been issued. Occupancy for the residential units shall be limited to 90% (342) units) until occupancy has been approved for the hotel and the two restaurant buildings. The applicant may seek to alter or remove this condition by way of a development agreement adopted in accordance with State law, provided that this condition shall not be construed to commit the City to approve a development agreement. " Commissioner Fletcher asked for clarification. Mr. Ghirelli said that if it benefits the city later on we could remove the need for the development agreement. Malory Lipert said she is in favor of the project and said she is glad native species will be grown in the gardens. Alison Sides said she is in support as this is the next level of smart community planning and this is a desirable destination. Matt Lipert said he is in support. He said it is a great plan for new families with flexible pedestrian access. Tim Avengeno offered support and said it is innovative planning that appeals to young professionals. Natashia Walton thanked the developer and Mr. Granger for looking into the bio issues. She said she is disappointed with the report regarding remnant sage scrub. She said it has value because it is used by birds and pollinator. She said more needs to be done such as adding more open space, build fewer homes, and make a connection to the drainage area. Chairman Oaxaca closed the public hearing. Dan Boyd said the Mixed Use concept includes higher density and it is called for by the General Plan. He said they did traffic analysis and Base Line and Day Creek are both major arterials designed for that many cars. He said regarding Ms. Walton's comments - she's asked for more sycamores, oaks and additional natives and we did it all. He noted as a developer they want appropriate balance and also achieved the city's landscape requirement and they put in a linear park. He said they already removed many homes from the southerly Page 14 of 18 C1Pg14 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA boundary as the concept was for a buffer not a big public park. He said the biological report is sufficient and had a peer review and reached the same conclusions as staff Commissioner Fletcher asked about the phasing plan -building timeline. Mr. Boyd said once they receive all their approvals, they will not be phased. they would start and go to finish. He said sales will govern phases for each product line. He said all architectural approvals will go at once. He said they have to be careful and said they can discuss alternatives. We do not want to stymie the residential portion. He said if they agree to the alternative language to the conditions they will need some flexibility. He said they are not looking for an escape route. He indicated the new condition language is satisfactory. Marianne Adriatico, legal counsel for DR Horton said this offers added protection to the city - so city got the assurance the hotel and restaurants will be built. Mr. Ghirelli said staff has drafted condition 13 - but DR Horton asked for security other than via withholding building permits which could be cash, letter of credit, bonds, etc, He said he is also not comfortable in putting in a financial payment in the condition. He said the development agreement is not guaranteed. He confirmed the condition in question is attached to the resolution for the Tentative Parcel Map # 17-55 and the applicant may seek to alter or remove this condition. Commissioner Fletcher said the developer did a true Mixed Use development. He said he was initially concerned the restaurant and hotel might not happen with the residential portion of the development and he stressed the importance that they deliver a "full project"and attempt to exclude the hotellrestaurant portion because of the market etc. He said it has an excellent design and he likes the concept. He said it will add a village community to that area. He said the fiscal impact to the city could be beneficial. He said he appreciates the excess parking. He said the design is compatible with the community- good architecture.' Commissioner Wimberly concurred and noted the unique plotting. He said this corner will be a signature spot. Commissioner Munoz concurred and thanked staff and the developer for the unique project. He thanked the public and noted the Commission tries to do the right thing with traffic and parking. He said the project is near Victoria Gardens noting we attract people from everywhere. He said the linear park buffer is a good idea. He said this project means more affordable housing will be available. Page 15 of 18 C1Pg15 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Chairman Oaxaca said we aii have had to shift our thinking for those who have lived here for many years. Changes we have seen have been positive and Rancho Cucamonga is a model of smart and well -thought out development He said the project is reflective of what reality is. He said it is a good balance Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to adopt Resolution 17-54 recommending approval for Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452 to be forwarded to the City Council with the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for final action. Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to adopt the following Resolutions of Approval: 17-55 approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762 (as amended with Condition 13 reworded); 17-56 approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032; 17-57 approving Design Review DRC2016-00450; 17-58 approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449; 17-60 approving Minor Exception DRC2016-00508 and 17-59 approving Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451. F. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES. Commissioner Munoz said he would provide a report at the next meeting. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: None G. ADJOURNMENT 10:35 R M. I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Page 16 of 18 C1Pg16 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA June 8, 2017 seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. ILSI Lois J. Schrader Planning Commission Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Page 17 of 18 C1Pg17 JUNE 1412017 I ;? HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a m. to 6 00 p.m except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,662 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us. Page 18 of 18 C1Pg18 NE STAFF REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City PlanneGk�A) INITIATED BY: Tom Grahn. Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES — A request to revoke Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, approved in error on November 9, 2016, for a request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for DRC2007-00951. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Due to an error in the project title of a related application (Design Review DRC2017-00481), staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Design Review DRC2017- 00480 to the July 26, 2017 meeting date. The project will be re -advertised, noticed and posted. CB:TG/Is D1Pg1 L� STAFF REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner INITIATED BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00481 — BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES -A request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) to allow for the retention of two existing residential structures on site for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues; APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January22, 2014. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15164 which does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Initial Study. RECOMMENDATION: Due to an error in the project title, staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Design Review DRC2017-00481 to the July 26, 2017 meeting date. The project will be re -advertised, noticed, and posted with the correct title. CB:TG/Is D2 Pg 1 f�•*" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • •STAFF REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planne INITIATED BY: Mike Smith, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20106 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. — A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 82 acres into five (5) parcels located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 6th Street, south of the Metrolink/BNSF rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues - APN: 0209-272-20. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre - Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20105 be continued to an unspecified date. PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: The proposed Tentative Tract Map was originally scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing to be held on June 14, 2017. At that meeting, Staff explained that the applicant had questions about one of the conditions of approval related to the subject tentative tract map. At the request of the applicant, the Commission continued the review of the application to June 28, 2017 in order to allow time for Staff and the applicant to discuss the subject condition of approval. To date, Staff is still evaluating potential revisions to the subject condition of approval. Staff is recommending a continuance to an unspecified date. When the "finalized" language/text of the draft condition of approval has been determined, Staff will re -advertise the public hearing for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20105. CB:MS/Is D3 Pg 1 REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planne� INITIATED BY: Mike Smith, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20073 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. — A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 84 acres into twenty- seven (27) parcels and one (1) lettered lot located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues - APNs: 0210- 082-41, -49, and -52. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre -Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073 be continued to an unspecified date. PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: The proposed Tentative Tract Map was originally scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing to be held on May 24, 2017. Due to an error in the public noticing process, the Planning Commission continued the review of the application to June 14, 2017. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073 was then duly advertised and brought before the Commission on June 14, 2017. At the June 14, 2017 meeting, Staff explained that the applicant had questions about one of the conditions of approval related to the subject tentative tract map. At the request of the applicant, the Commission continued the review of the application to June 28, 2017 in order to allow time for Staff and the applicant to discuss the subject condition of approval. To date, Staff is still evaluating potential revisions to the subject condition of approval. Staff is recommending a continuance to an unspecified date. When the "finalized" language/text of the draft condition of approval has been determined, Staff will re -advertise the public hearing for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073. CB-.MS/Is D4 Py 1 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Albert Espinoza, Assistant City Engineer INITIATED BY: Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2017-00482 — GERDAU —A request to modify the conditions of approval specifically related to required public improvements for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009, and Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2013-00992 approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2009, and an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a modification to the conditions of approval for DRC2008-00512 modifying certain conditions related to required public improvements. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Heavy Industrial (Subarea Existing Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI), Across 15). Across Arrow Route: North Building with storage Arrow Route General Existing Industrial Building; yard; Industrial (GI) General Industrial (Subarea 8 South Existing Industrial Storage Yard and Heavy Industrial (HI) Heavy Industrial (Subarea Office Building 15) East Existing Industrial Buildings and Storage Heavy Industrial (HI) Heavy Industrial (Subarea Yard 15) West Existing Utility Uses; Heavy Industrial (HI) Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15 D5 Pg 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00992 June 28, 2017 Page 2 Site Characteristics: The 80-acre project site is located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of the 1-15 Freeway and west of Etiwanda Avenue in the Heavy Industrial (HI) District. The existing Gerdau Steel plant is set back approximately 700 feet south of Arrow Route and surrounded by industrial uses. There are two portions of the project site that abut Arrow Route, including a 330-foot section along the western project boundary and a 25-foot wide section that provides driveway access to the steel plant from Arrow Route. The property is bordered along the south property line by the Santa Fe Railroad tracks, with rail spurs branching onto the site. Gerdau's production facilities are located towards the southern portion of the project site. The outside storage of scrap materials occurs in the middle and mid -westerly portions of the site, the outside storage of production materials occurs in the southwesterly portion of the site, and the outside storage of finished products occurs on the easterly portion of the site. Employee parking and administrative offices are situated off the central driveway, which runs from Arrow Route, then southerly between the Ameron and Fontana Steel facilities. PROJECT BACKGROUND: DRC2008-00512 was approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 09-01 for the demolition of a 6,500 square foot bag house air filtering system and 11,778 square foot electrical substation building, and the construction of a 16,781 square foot bag house air filtering system and 21,840 square foot electrical substation building. DRC2013-00992 (a modification to DRC2008-00512) was approved by Resolution No. 14-54 for the replacement of the proposed 11,778 square foot substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, and enclosing the existing 6,375 square foot melt shop cupola with a canopy and construction a 6,090 square foot addition to the melt shop building. Included in the conditions of approval for this project are the construction of certain public improvements along the Arrow Route frontage of the project and relocation of a utility pole supporting 66kV power lines. Relocation of the 66kV power pole is not feasible at this time due to conflicts with an existing structure on the adjacent property to the west. Without the relocation of this utility pole, certain conditioned public improvements such as as the installation of trees, sidewalk, and undergrounding of distribution utility lines is recommended to be delayed until the 66kV pole can be relocated to avoid damage or duplication of work. The widening of Arrow Route at this location, including construction of these improvements (except for the utility undergrounding and relocation of the utility pole), is included in the scope of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. Therefore, the future construction of conditioned DIF improvements is considered funded through the Transportation Development Impact Fee program, and the conditions satisfied for the street trees (DRC2013-00992, Condition 5) and curvilinear sidewalk (DRC2013-00992, Condition 2 and 5), that will be constructed at a later date. Further, should the proposed modifications of the conditions of approval be approved, the applicant will pay in -lieu fees to cover the relocation of the utility pole and utility undergrounding at a later date. The following revisions to the conditions of approval are proposed: Remove Engineering Condition of Approval 6: Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of grading permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete, signed by the City Engineer, and an improvement agreement and bonds executed by the developer, prior to building permit issuance. D5 Pg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00992 June 28, 2017 Page 3 • Change Engineering Condition of Approval 7 from The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for 66kV electrical) on the project side of Arrow Route shall be undergrounded from the first pole east of the east project boundary to the first pole off site west of the west project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover up to one-half the actual costs for undergrounding. We collected $79, 431.00 from DRC2004-01290 on the north side of Arrow Route for this segment and a portion of the adjacent property to the west. To: The developer shall pay an in -lieu fee for the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for 66kV electrical) along the project frontage on Arrow Route in the amount shown in the fee schedule current at the time of payment. Payment shall be made prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. Change Engineering Condition of Approval 10 from: Relocate 66 kV power poles for Arrow Route frontage improvements. If Southern California Edison (SCE) indicated relocation is not possible, or would recommend it not being done at this time, the developer shall provide a cash contribution in lieu of construction for that portion of the Arrow Route improvements that cannot be completed. Said contribution in lieu of construction shall include the future power pole relocation costs. To: The developer shall pay an in -lieu fee for the relocation of the 66kV power pole on Arrow Route in the amount of $60,000. Payment shall be made prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: transportation infrastructure and police. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: PUBLIC SAFETY Proactively install public safety improvements in the right of way to meet community needs. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. D5Pg3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00992 June 28, 2017 Page 4 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Planning Commission Resolution 14-54 with Conditions of Approval Exhibit B — Vicinity Map of Project Location Draft Resolution of Approval 17-66 D5 Pg 4 RESOLUTION NO. 14-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00992, A REQUEST TO MODIFY CUP DRC2008-00512 TO INCLUDE: 1).REPLACING'A PROPOSED 10,181 SQUARE FOOT BAGHOUSE AIR FILTERING SYSTEM WITH A 11,853 SQUARE FOOT BAGHOUSE AIR FILTERING SYSTEM, 2) REPLACING A PROPOSED 11,778 `SQUARE FOOT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION BUILDING WITH 4,000 SQUARE FOOT 'ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION BUILDING, 3) ENCLOSING THE EXISTING MELT SHOP CUPOLA WITHIN A PROPOSED 6,375 SQUARE FOOT -;NEW MELT SHOP CANOPY, AND 4) CONSTRUCTING A 6,090 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE MELT SHOP BUILDING, ON 80 ACRES. AT THE EXISTING GERDAU STEEL PLANT IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 12459-B ARROW ROUTE; AND'MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0229-131-19. A. Recitals. I. MIG Hogie-Ireland filed an application on behalf of Gerdau Steel for Conditional Use Permit No. DRC2013-00992, as described in the title of this 'Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the, application." 2. On the 10th day of December 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it Is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on December 10, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at 12459-B Arrow Route on the south side of Arrow Route between the I-15.Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of approximately 345 feet and an average lot depth of 1,210, feet.and which Is presently improved with 98;032 square. feet of manufacturing space, 22,009 square feet of office space, and 70,046 aqua -re feet ollwarehousing space; and EXHIBIT A I D5 Pg 5 PLANNING COMMISSION: RESOLUTION NO. 14-54 DRC2013-00992 — MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 2 b. The properties to the south, east, and west of the project site are within the Heavy Industrial (HI) District and the properties to the north (on the north=side of Arrow Route) are within the General Industrial (GI) District; and C. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially Injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. As conditioned, the new Baghouse will meet the South Coast Air Quality Management standards and be monitored by them'to assure that the emission limits are not,exoeeded; and d. The proposed project meets or exceeds all Development Code standards, except building height. The Development Code permits building heights In over 75 feet subject to the approval of a.Conditional Use Permit. The existing Melt Shop;cupola is 120 feet high, the proposed Melt Shop Canopy is 135 feet high, and the proposed Baghouse is'78 feet high. These buildings are In the southerly portion of the project site, are set back approximately 700'feet south of Arrow Route, and the slight increase in height will not represent .a significant change in the visual environment on the project site. e. The project design and exterior building materials will match the existing. materials of the Baghouse, substation, and Mel Shop. The Baghouse and Melt Shop additions and canopy will be:constructed of rolled structural steel sections, the siding and'roofing is sheet metal; which are similar materials to the existing building. The electrical substation: will be constructed of fabricated steel frames and cold formed steel sections with metal siding .and roofing. The Mel Shop, Baghouse, and substation buildings will be painted °Signal White" on the siding and "Ultramarine Blue" on the upper siding, and trim. The canopy and ducting will be painted "Shale Gray" (a high temperature resistant paint). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth In paragraphs 1 and 2, above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or Improvements in the vicinity. C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the .application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental, document is required ,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration In January 2009 in connection with the City's approvalof Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512. Pursuant to D5Pg6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-54. DRC2013-00992 — MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (1) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (il) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that Indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (ill) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe Impacts than previously considered; or (fv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitgation measures can be Imposed to substantially reduceimpacts. b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00992, that substantial changes to the project or, the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts then those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project includes: 1) replacing a proposed 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot Saghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing a proposed 11,778 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3) enclosing the existing Melt Shop cupola within a proposed 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy, and 4) constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building, the additional square footage does not amount to a major change and would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously Identified in the MND. As documented in the Addendum, the project will not have any significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. As such, the. proposed -Conditional Use Permit application does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. Based on these findings and all evidence In the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the Conditional Use Permit DRC2014- 00992 and an Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall,certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: xaC Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: _ Cand umett, Secretalry D5Pg7 PLANNING COMMISSIONRESOLUTION NO.14-54 DRC2013-00992 - MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) December 10, 2014 Page 4 I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of December 2014,,bythe following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE alm- Conditions of Approval .. Cominunity.Development Department DR62013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR>PROJECT., A. Mannino Department •1. All Standard Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and environmental mitigations contained In Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 09-01 for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 shall apply. 2. Approval is for a modification to Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512to Include: 1) replacing a proposed 16,781 square foot baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853,square foot baghouse air filtering system, 2) replacing a proposed 11,778 square foot aII"cal substation building .with a 4,000 square foot electrical .substation building, 3) demolishing the existing Melt Shop cupola,, and constructing a 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy, and 4) constructing a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building, and other minor alterations. 3. The °'Melt Shop, Baghouse, and substation buildings shall be 'painted "Signal White" on the siding and "Ultramarine Blue" on the upper siding and Grim. The canopy and ducting shall be a high temperature resistant "Shale,Prey". 4. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. 5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any actlon brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, ,because of the issuance of such approval, -or in' the aftemative, to relinquish such approval The applicant shall reimburse the City, ,lts agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agentsofficers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a .result of such action. The Citymay, at ;its sole discretion, �pardcipate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but! such,'participatlon shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. P. Copies of , the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 14-"", Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 00-61, Standard Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheets are for Information only to all parties involved In the construction/grading activities and .are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 7. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not Issued within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. B. Enaineerina Services Department 1. Dedicate an additional 20feet along the approximately, 3201eet of Arrow Route fronting APN 229-121-34, bringing the total to So feet (measured from the street centerline). Punted: 12MD14 wwwDlyolMus D5Pg9 J Project #: Project Name: .Location: Project Type: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014=00020 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. B. Enaineerina Services Department 2. Arrow Route frontage Improvements shall be in accordance. ,with City "Major Arterial" standards including but not limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt pavement, curvilinear sidewalk, street trees and streetlights. a. Remove and replace the existing asphalt pavement south of the Arrow Route centedine. Widen as needed so that curb face is 36 feet south of said centedine. Join existing Improvements to the east and transition to the existing pavement width west of the west property line to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Provide 9500 Lumen HPSV-equivalent LED streetlights. c. Protect, repair or provide signing and striping as required. d. The developer shall receive credit against; and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbuisement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 3. Parkway shall slope at 2 percent from the top of curb to the right-of-way. 4. Drive approach shall conform to Standard Drawing 101, Type C, including the minimum 35-foot width at the fight -of -way. 5. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows: Gingko biloba °Fairmount° (common name Maidenhair Tree), 15-gallon, planted 20-feet on center In 5-foot minimum grow spaces. The Engineering Services Department reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. The completed Street Tree 'Legend box and construction notes (below) shall appear or the title page of the street Improvement plans. Street Improvement plans shall include a line Rem within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet _ (typically sheet 1)." Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1. All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2. Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be fumished to the City Inspector. Any unusual toxicides or nutrient deficiencies may ,require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City, inspector. 3. All street trees are subject to Inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department 4. Street trees are to be planted per public Improvement plans only. Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of grading permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete, signed by the City Engineer, and an Improvement agreement and bonds executed by the developer, prior to building permit Issuance. Printed: 1=014 WWW.c1tycFtc.u8 Pape 2 of 9 D5 Pg 10 Project #: Project Name: Location: Project Type: DRC2013-00992 CEQg2014-00020 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING COND177ONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT., B. EnaineeNna Services Department The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for 66 W electrical) on the project side of Arrow Route shall be undergrounded from, the` first pole off site east of the east project boundary to the first pole off site west of the west project boundary, prior to public Improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first The, developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover up to one=half the actual costs for undergrounding. we collected $79,431.00 from DRC2004-01290 on the north side, of Arrow Route for :this segment and a ortion of the adjacent property to the west. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit Is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during constructlonand demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is ,provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form C154 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. 9. Applicant shall,pay development impact fees prior tothe 'issuance of a building, permit as follows: a. Transportation: $5,401 per 1,000 square feet of additional1nd6strI6 buildings:• b. General City Drainage: Not Applicable until the total area` of additions and new structures constructed after the effective date of the original ordinance (1979) exceeds .fifty percent of the area of existing structures on the parcel on the effective date of ''tte original ordinance, as codified, in Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code. 10. Relocate 66 W ,power poles for Arrow Route frontage Improvements. If Southern California Edison (SCE) indicates relocation is not possible, or would recommend it not being done at this time, the developer shall provide a cash contribution in lieu of construction for that portion of the Arrow Route Improvements that cannot be completed. Said contribution In lieu of construction shall include t the future power pole relocation costs. C. Fire Prevention./ New Construction Unit 1. Obtain approval of the RCFPD for the FPP, when approvalfrom the planning department and RCFPD1s received please submit construction, plans to B&S for plan review D. Building and:Safety Services Department 1. Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and'wet° signature arerequired prior to plan check submittal. Printed:. 1ZFJW14 'www.C1tyotRC.us Page 3 of e D5 Pg 11 ' Project #: Project Name: Location: Project Type: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. D. BUlldina and Safety Services Department 2. Submit five complete sets of plans Including the following: a. Site/ Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Framing Plan; d. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) Including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; e. Plumbing and Sewer ,Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, f. Planning Department Project Number (Le., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc.) clearly Identified on the all plans g. Structural Calculations (2 sets) h. Mechanical plans. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit Issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Services Department. E. Grading Section 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The .Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design. recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall he prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geoldgist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final. Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted„ and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the Issuance of building permits. 5. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal Is required for ail new construction projects and for existing buildings where Improvements being proposed will , generate 50 cubic yards or more. of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be .prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 6. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the Issuance of a grading permit. Pdnted:12/s2014 www•CltyofRC.us Page 4 of D5 Pg 12 Project # Project Name: Location: Project Type: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: E. Grading Section 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit .are submitted, to ;the Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be -a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Pernit. 8. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shallbe prepared and submitted to the Buiding and -Safety Official for review and approval for on -site storm water drainage prior to Issuance of a grading permit. All reports ' shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site , drainage easements prior to the Issuance of:e grading'permit. 10. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall Implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible, and provide details for all work not covered by City Standard'brawings. 11. All slopes shall be a' minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 12. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 13. The maximum parking stall gradient is 5,percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted Califomla Building Code. 14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 15. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Penmir. 16. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to 'the start of -grading operations the owner .and grading contractor shalt request a , pre=grading meeting. The meeting ' sh all '6e attended by the project owner/representative; the grading ,contractor and the Building, Inspector : to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre -grading meeting i9, not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building 'Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the 'following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: ,1) The bottom of the over=excavation; i1)' Completion of Rough Grading, prior to Issuance of the building permit; 111) At the complotion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building, Arid Safety Front Counter) :an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly *at signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will -be reviewed _ by the Associate Engineer ore designated person and approved prior to the Issuance of a building'permit. 17. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) ,best management practices (BMP) devices. Pdnted: 1252014 www.CJbF0 RC.ue Pepe lS'of ti D5Pg13 Project #: Project Name: Location: Project Type: DRC2013-00992 CEQA2014-00020 12459,ARROW RTE 022913119-0000 Conditional Use Permit Modification CEQA Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. E. Gradina Section 18. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall Include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 19. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 20. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). 21. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent 22. Prior to the Issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide to Building and Safety Services Director a copy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Memorandum of Agreement for Storm Water Quality Management Plan for review prior to recordation of the document. The Memorandum of Agreement for Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be recorded prior to Issuance of a grading permit. Prinwd; 12l3/2014 www.C1tyotRC.uB Pepe 8 018 D5 Pg 14 � Walmart ri'"L�`► r .Y t tr Liyu�ile A0n tin ic Corporaon 'Viclorla Wood pa can Ai ow Route - Arro'viRRou!e y r :' Al►'��111 � -ARCO r u' - e . v „ Xlet,^M�" I jj 'SA Recycling® '7 Vol 717)� r'1117' gl �8 Ha sR} RESOLUTION NO. 17-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2017-00482, A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2008-00512 APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 14, 2009, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2013-00992 APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 10, 2014 RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12459-B ARROW ROUTE - APN: 0229-131-19, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Gerdau Steel applied for Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2017-00482, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit Modification request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of January 2009, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 to demolish and replace an existing bag house air filtering system, and demolish and replace an existing electrical substation. 3. On the 10th day of December 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2013-00992 to decrease the size of the proposed bag house building, decrease the size of the proposed electrical substation, enclose the existing melt shop cupola, and add floor area to the melt shop building. 4. On the 28th day of June 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on June 28, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at 12459-B Arrow Route on the south side of Arrow Route between the 1-15 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of approximately 345 feet and an average lot depth of 1,210 feet and which is presently improved with 98,032 square feet of manufacturing space, 22,009 square feet of office space, and 70,049 square feet of warehousing space; and D5 Pg 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-66 DRC2017-00482 — MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) June 28, 2017 Page 2 b. The properties to the south, east, and west of the project site are within the Heavy Industrial (HI) District and the properties to the north (on the north side of Arrow Route) are within the General Industrial (GI) District; and C. The Conditions of Approval for DRC2013-00992 require the construction of certain public improvements along the Arrow Route frontage of the project and relocation of a utility pole supporting 66kV power lines; and d. The relocation of the 66kV power pole is not feasible at this time due to conflicts with an existing structure on the adjacent property to the west; and e. Without the relocation of this utility pole, certain conditioned public improvements (i.e., street trees, sidewalk, and the undergrounding of distribution utility lines) need to be delayed until the 66kV pole can be relocated to avoid damage to, or duplication of work in the installation of public improvements. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration in January 2009 in connection with the City's approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512, and an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration in December 2014 in connection with the City's approval of Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2013-00992. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (it) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. D5 Pg 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-66 DRC2017-00482 — MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) June 28, 2017 Page 3 b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2017-00482, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project includes: associated with DRC2013-00992 to 1) replace a proposed 16,781 square foot Baghouse air filtering system with a 11,853 square foot Baghouse air filtering system, 2) replace a proposed 11,778 square foot electrical substation building with a 4,000 square foot electrical substation building, 3) enclose the existing Melt Shop cupola within a proposed 6,375 square foot Melt Shop canopy, and 4) construct a 6,090 square foot addition to the Melt Shop building, the additional square footage does not amount to a major change and would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the MND. The project will not have any significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. As such, the proposed Conditional Use Permit application does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2017-00482. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: Francis Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: D5 Pg 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-66 DRC2017-00482— MIG HOGLE-IRELAND (GERDAU STEEL) June 28, 2017 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: D5 Pg 19 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2017-00482 Project Name: CUP Modification /// Gerdau Location: 12459 ARROW RTE B - 022913124-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. All applicable Standard Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and environmental mitigations contained in Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 09-01 for Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00512 shall apply. 2. All applicable Conditions of Approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 14-54 for Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2013-00992 shall apply. Standard Conditions of Approval 3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 4. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 6. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans it effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 8. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Pdnted: 6/21/2017 www.CityofRC.us D5 Pg 20 Project #: DRC2017-00482 Project Name: CUP Modification N Gerdau Location: 12459 ARROW RTE B - 022913124-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Remove the following Engineering condition of approval 6 from DRC2013-00992: "Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of grading permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete, signed by the City Engineer, and an improvement agreement and bonds executed by the developer, prior to building permit issuance." 2. Change the following Engineering condition of approval 7 in DRC2013-00992 from: "The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for 66kV electrical) on the project side of Arrow Route shall be undergrounded from the first pole east of the east project boundary to the first pole off site west of the west project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover up to one-half the actual costs for undergrounding. We collected $79,431.00 from DRC2004-01290 on the north side of Arrow Route for this segment and a portion of the adjacent property to the west." To: "The developer shall pay an in -lieu fee for the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for 66kV electrical) along the project frontage on Arrow Route in the amount shown in the fee schedule current at the time of payment. Payment shall be made prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first." 3. Change the following Engineering condition of approval 10 in DRC2013-00992 from: "Relocate 66 kV power poles for Arrow Route frontage improvements. If Southern California Edison (SCE) indicated relocation is not possible, or would recommend it not being done at this time, the developer shall provide a cash contribution in lieu of construction for that portion of the Arrow Route improvements that cannot be completed. Said contribution in lieu of construction shall include the future power pole relocation costs." To: "The developer shall pay an in -lieu fee for the relocation of the 66kV power pole on Arrow Route in the amount of $60,000. Payment shall be made prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first." Printed: 6/21/2017 w .CityofRC.us Page 2 0( 2 D5Pg21 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner INITIATED BY: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797— RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN - A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet comprised of warehouse and office area for distribution purposes on a 17-acre site in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue - APNs: 0229-271-24, -25, and -26. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts; and • Adopt the Resolution approving Design Review DRC2015-00797 PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: This item was previously scheduled for two Planning Commission public hearings (Exhibits L and M). The project was first scheduled for the May 25, 2016 hearing. However, review of the project was continued due to a comment letter (Exhibit N) received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on May 20, 2016 in response to the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was circulated on April 20, 2016. Following the continuance, the applicant and their environmental consultants worked with Staff and the CDFW to address the comments. As new mitigations were added, the MND was recirculated prior to the second hearing that was scheduled for December 14, 2016. The City received three additional comment letters (Exhibits O, P and Q) prior to this hearing. Two letters were received from Lozeau Drury, LLP. on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) on December 8 and 13, 2016, and a third letter was received from Jeremiah George on behalf of South Coast Chapter of California Native Plant Society on December 14, 2016. The review of the project was continued a second time in order to allow the applicant time to adequately respond to the new comments. In January 2017, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service contacted Staff by telephone and commented on the site's suitability as habitat for an endangered species. The applicant has since evaluated and addressed all of the comments that were received and revised the MND accordingly. The MND was subsequently recirculated for a third time. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is approximately 17 acres in size and is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue. The site is approximately 880 feet (east to west) by approximately 594 feet (north D6 Pg 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 2 to south) and slopes from north to south with an elevation change from 1123 at the north to 1114 at the south. The site is surrounded to the north, south, east and west by existing industrial development and uses, as indicated in the table below. Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Burlington Northern Santa Fe North (BNSF)/Metrolink rail line and Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) District Storage Yard and Auction Facility Co art SCE Corridors with Power General Industrial (GI) South Transmission Lines and General Industrial District Towers Burlington Northern Santa Fe East (BNSF) Rail Line and Southern Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial (HI) District California Edison SCE Facility SCE Corridors with Power General Industrial (GI) est Fw Transmission Lines and General Industrial District Towers ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, RGA Office of Architecture and Design, proposes to construct a logistics building with a floor area of 339,000 square feet. The building will consist of two (2) office areas (15,000 square feet), manufacturing (15,000 square feet) and warehousing (309,000 square feet). The offices will be located at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. The dock loading area, with 36 dock doors, will be located on the south side of the building. There will be a trailer storage area with 36 trailer parking spaces located adjacent to the loading dock. The dock and trailer storage areas will be screened by a concrete tilt -up wall of 8 feet in height. This wall will have textured concrete accents to match the architecture of the building. There will be an employee break area located near each office. Each will be a minimum of 500 square feet in area, as required by the Development Code, and include an overhead shade structure. Landscape coverage is 15.4 percent (107,400 square feet); the minimum requirement is 10 percent (69,647 square feet) for this development district. B. Parking: Per Section 17.64 of the Development Code, the parking requirements for the project are as follows: Floor Area Number of Number Type of Use (SF) Parking Ratio Spaces of Spaces Required Provided Office 15,000 1/250 SF 60 60 Manufacturing 15,000 1/500 SF 30 30 Warehouse 309,000 15' 20,000 SF @ 1/1,000 98 100 D6 Pg2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 3 2nd 20,000 SF @ 1/2,000 Remainin SF @ 1/4,000 Total I 1 1 188 190 The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction, painted with a palette of colors (red, white and grey shades). The building will have form liner textured concrete accents. The building will have secondary building materials consisting of blue reflective glass with anodized aluminum mullions. Clerestory reflective blue glass will be incorporated along the upper level of the south, west, and east elevations. Anodized aluminum trellises are provided along the first floor office windows and above the primary entrances to both office areas. Downspouts will not be visible from the exterior on any elevation of the building as they will be routed through the interior of the building. The site is located south of and adjacent to a BNSF rail line. The Development Code requires properties which adjoin existing or proposed lead or spur lines to provide rail service access. Upon obtaining the current Industrial Track Guidelines from BNSF that specify standards for railway designs, the applicant's engineer was unable to meet the guidelines as the vertical curves and grade requirements necessary could not be achieved for this site. Furthermore, on April 17, 2015, staff received correspondence from a project engineer with BNSF Railway Co. indicating multiple issues with this site's suitability for rail service. Due to the multiple noted engineering obstacles, including the lack of ability to meet current Industrial Tract Guidelines, the BNSF project engineer stated that it is very unlikely to be approved for rail service. Therefore, because of the multiple noted issues, the site will not be developed to incorporate rail service. Primary access to the site will be provided via an extension of Santa Anita Avenue, an existing public street that currently terminates about 395 feet south of the southern property line of the project site. The extension will be approximately 510 feet in length, and will terminate with a cul-de-sac bulb. Three (3) driveways will be constructed for vehicle access to the property. The project includes the construction of a secondary, emergency access road. This road will connect the project site (at the northwest corner) to an existing road that was constructed as a condition of approval for an existing logistics building located about 815 feet to the west of the project site. Both the extension of Santa Anita Avenue and the emergency access road will cross through the aforementioned SCE properties/easements. The applicant has contacted SCE and is in the process of preparing the necessary access agreements. C. Floor Area Ratio: Per Chapter 2, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan of the General Plan, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the General Industrial land use category is 60 percent. As the proposed building will have a floor area of 339,000 square feet and the project site has an area of 696,465 square feet, the calculated FAR for the project will be approximately 48.67 percent. D. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on February 16, 2016. Preliminary conditions were discussed. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommended approval. The Committee's Conditions of Approval, including dedication and construction of the northerly extension of Santa Anita Avenue, have been incorporated in the Resolution of Approval. D6 Pg3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 4 E. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Fletcher, Oaxaca, and Granger) on February 16, 2016. No major issues were discussed in the DRC Comments (Exhibit K). However, there were several policy issues that were discussed involving equipment screening, employee break areas, fencing, walls, gates, decorative paving and paint color. To address these, the Committee added Conditions of Approval requiring each of the items discussed to be incorporated into the final design of the project. The Committee then recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. The Committee's Conditions of Approval have been incorporated in the Resolution of Approval. F. Assembly Bill 52 Compliance: In accordance with AB52, native communities were contacted to determine interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. The City was contacted via email on March 7, 2016, by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in reference to the Cultural Resource Assessment. A representative of San Manuel stated they have reviewed the report and concur with the findings and recommendations with the addition of "should tribal cultural resources be uncovered during construction, that our office is notified for consultation." The City was also contacted (letter dated March 10, 2016) by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians who stated they do not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project encompasses, but they requested that the appropriate consultation continue to take place between concerned tribes, project proponents, and local agencies. They also requested that "approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project." The Soboba Band wishes to defer to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians who are in closer proximity to the project. Therefore, staff has included a mitigation that states, "Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant/permittee shall contact the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department to coordinate tribal participation in the archaeological monitoring of the project. Tribal participants shall coordinate with the Project Archaeologist to ensure that tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground disturbances are identified, assessed and either protected in place or mitigated accordingly." With this mitigation measure, impacts to the cultural resources will be less than significant. G. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project (Exhibit X). Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and was circulated on April 20, 2016. A comment letter (Exhibit N) was received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on May 20, 2016 in response. The applicant and their biologists worked with staff to address CDFW's comments, which included (a) the project's potential to impact sensitive species and natural communities, (b) the adequacy and specificity of the proposed mitigation measures, and (c) the impacts of the project on an existing ephemeral stream that runs through the project site. Following the initial circulation of the IS/MND on April 20, 2016, the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse and San Diego Black -Tailed Jackrabbit were discovered during the habitat suitability studies. Because of this, a mitigation was added to reduce the impacts to these State listed species of special concern to less than significant. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 5 Within the Biological Resources section of the recirculated IS/MND, one (1) mitigation measure was added, five (5) mitigation measures were modified, and one (1) mitigation measure was deleted. These revisions are: (1) the addition of a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore 6.4 acres similar alluvial scrub habitat within the watershed to offset the impacts to the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, (2) the modification of two mitigation measures relating to preconstruction surveys involving Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, (3) the modification of two mitigation measures relating to burrowing owl and nesting avian species, (4) the modification of a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to provide proof to the City that the Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602 Agreement) has been concluded, and (5) since focused surveys were completed prior to the recirculation of the MND, the requirement for preparation of focused surveys for special status and sensitive plant species prior to issuance of a grading permit was deleted. According to CEQA Section 15073.5(a), recirculation of a negative declaration is required priorto its adoption when it has been substantially revised after public notice of its availability has been given pursuant to Section 15072. Furthermore, CEQA Section 15073.5(b) states, "a "substantial revision" of the negative declaration shall mean: (1) a new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measure or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) the lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required." Therefore, the MND was recirculated on November 7, 2016. The City received three additional comment letters (Exhibits O, P and Q) in response. Two letters were received from Lozeau Drury, LLP. on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) on December 8 and 13, 2016, and a third letter was received from Jeremiah George on behalf of South Coast Chapter of California Native Plant Society on December 14, 2016. The letters presented new concerns relating to the project's impacts to air quality and biological resources. In January 2017, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) contacted Staff by telephone and commented on the site's suitability as habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly (DSFF). The applicant prepared responses (Exhibits R, S, and T) that address the previously mentioned concerns and has conducted onsite meetings with Staff and the USFWS. Furthermore, Staff received a letter of support (Exhibit U) from Lozeau Drury that indicated, "LIUNA no longer opposes the project and instead now supports the prompt approval of the project." Although all items have been addressed, a new mitigation measure was added to the revised MND regarding impacts to the Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly. Therefore, to be in compliance with CEQA Section 15073.5(a), the MND was recirculated on May 22, 2017. Below is a summary of some of the key subjects and comments presented by CDFW, Lozeau Drury, and Jeramiah George. The applicant's environmental consultants' responses are in italics: 1. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat CDFW Comment: The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the project, prepared by Salix Consulting, Inc. in 2015, concludes that there is no potential for the D6 Pg5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 6 Federally Endangered and State Species of Special Concern San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) to occur on -site because the site 'lacks suitable habitat'. However, CDFW does not concur with this determination and recommended trapping surveys to be conducted to help determine presence or absence of the species at this site. Lozeau Drury Comment: "No mitigation is proposed for loss of San Bernardino kangaroo rat or its habitat because the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) concludes that the species is absent." Response: The alluvial fans along the south slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains support Riversidean Alluvian Fan Sage Scrub habitat which is known to support the Federal listed San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR). SBKR generally requires the presence of sandy to loamy soils, alluvial scrub habitat, connectivity to natural hydrological processes such as rivers and streams needed for scour to maintain openness of the alluvial scrub habitat, and moderate to low level of disturbances. Although the project site does contain the appropriate soils and low quality alluvial scrub habitat, the site is no longer subjected to the hydrologic regime associated with an active channel that carryflood waters through an area. These flows are now captured upstream and conveyed away from the project site. The project site is also subjected to heavy disturbance levels associated with off -road vehicle uses. There are several established dirt bike tracks within the project site. The lack of these latter two habitat features, hydrologic scouring and moderate to low levels of disturbance, and the fact that the site is generally surrounded by development on all four sides, is expected to prevent SBKR from inhabiting the site. Additionally, a trapping study of the site was conducted by Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. with Michael Baker International in 2016 to determine whether Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, a state species of concern, was present and would have detected SBKR if present. Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) was determined to be present; however, SBKR was not trapped on the project site and can be presumed to be absent. Additionally, a separate five -night trapping study was done in March 2017, which confirmed the absence of SBKR. Therefore, due to the reasons listed above, no impact is anticipated to the SBKR and no mitigation is necessary. 2. Nesting Birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act CDFW Comment: CDFW noted the requirement to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as well as sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC). These requirements ultimately state that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto. The IS includes a mitigation measure requiring preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to initiating project activities during the nesting season, which the IS defines as "February 1 through August 31". Some species (i.e., owls) may commence nesting as early as January 1, while many other species may not fully fledge until fall. The Department therefore does not recommend relying on seasonal restrictions alone, to avoid impacts to nesting birds, and recommends that the mitigation measure be revised to require nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year. In order to locate nests, the Department recommends that pre -construction nesting bird surveys be required no PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 7 more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbance activities, as instances of nesting could be missed if surveys are conducted sooner." Response: Revisions were made to the mitigation that now require, prior to soil disturbance, vegetation removal and issuance of a grading permit, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds to be conducted within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. This resolves the CDFW's concerns relating to nesting birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 3. Alluvial Scrub Habitat CDFW Comment: CDFW has identified the onsite vegetation community present based on the species list and the site's presence on the historic Etiwanda alluvial fan potentially as scale broom scrub (Lepidospartum alliance). Scale broom scrub has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3, with some associations within the scale broom scrub alliance (i.e., Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub) as rare as G1 S1.1. The Department considers all associations with state ranks of S1-S3 to be highly imperiled, and considers the removal of alluvial fan scale broom scrub to be a significant impact. In order to reduce the impacts to alluvial fan scale broom scrub to a level that is less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City require the project proponent to purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar habitat within the watershed." Response: According to the Biological Resource Assessment prepared by Salix, the site contains an alluvial scrub plant community, which occupies an area of 3.2-acre portion of the eastern half of the 17-acre project site. Based on a site visit in April of 2016, Salix also determined a total of .09 acre of Lepidospartum squamatum was present onsite. Of the 17-acre site, this represents one half of one percent cover of the site (0.5%). According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a presence of greater than 1 % of this species would classify the community as scale broom scrub which has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3. Since the site contains less than 1 cover, the habitat is not considered scale broom scrub and its removal is considered less than significant. However, the following mitigation measure is provided that addresses the loss of alluvial scrub to further reduce the impacts. Mitigation Measure: Because of the loss of suitable LAPM habitat, this habitat of 3.2 acres shall be mitigated at an offsite location at a 3:1 ratio. The applicant shall purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar alluvial scrub habitat within the watershed. All mitigation must be approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and in place prior to construction. 4. Lake and Streambed Alteration CDFW's Comment: CDFW provided a summary of the process involved with any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream or use material from a streambed. This process will require the project applicant (or "entity") to provide written notification to the Department pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, the Department then determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. D6 Pg7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 8 CDFW also stated they are concerned that the Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) included with the IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) underrepresents the streambed and riparian resources present on -site. Although the BRA characterizes the on -site willow scrub as non -riparian, the willows are associated with the stream and should be included in the evaluation of impacts. Furthermore, the Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) appears to depict only the low -flow portion of the channel. The Department recommends that the JD be revised to include the entire bed of the stream, bank, and channel, including the vegetation associated with the stream, prior to recirculating the CEQA document. Response: The applicant has since submitted the 1602 application on April 18, 2016 This should resolve CDFW's concern as to whether the process for the 1602 permit will be complied with. Regarding the concern involving the accuracy of the Jurisdictional Delineation, the Corps of Engineers has verified the wetland delineation map and issued a 404 permit based on what they consider to be waters of the U.S. CDFW's jurisdiction is "top of bank" or "riparian edge." 5. Delhi Sand Flower -Loving Fly Jeremiah George's Comments: The site is potential habitat forthe Delhi Sands Flower - Loving Fly a federally listed endangered species. Southern California Edison has conducted some protocol surveys abutting this site which have produced negative results. However this site has not been surveyed for the required 2 years per USFWS. The area maps outside of Delhi Sands (per United States Geological Survey - USGS) however this area has documented Delhi blow sands present (per obs, per USFWS). Response: Michael Baker International provided a response to this issue, indicating that although USGS did not identify this area as supporting Delhi Sands and the project is outside USFW designated Delhi Sand Soils, there are portions, particularly the western side of the site visually appears to support Delhi Sand Soils. An onsite inspection demonstrates that only a thin layer of Delhi Sands, an Aeolian distributed soil, has been deposited inside the western boundary. This layer of Delhi Sands, while giving the site the appearance of supporting clean Delhi Sands soils, does not occur with sufficient depth to support the species. The deeper soils are Tujunga loamy sand, which does not provide suitable habitat for Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly (DSF). DSF spend the majority of its life underground living within the deeper clean Delhi Sands. Without Delhi Sands soils at depth, DSF would not occur. There have been several focused surveys for DSF for the project site, 2003 through 2006 and 2013 through 2015 (Exhibit V). All surveys have been negative with no indication that DSF has ever been present on -site. Given the lack of deeper Delhi Sand Soils, and further give the lack of any positive sightings of DSF onsite, despite seven focused surveys, clearly indicates that DSF is absent from the project site and that the species would not be expected to occur. Additionally, based on a site visit and recently prepare focused surveys indicating the site's absence of DSF, USFW determined that a one-year focused survey would be allowed. Therefore, a Mitigation measure was added to the MND that will mitigate the potential impacts to the DSF should the focused survey find that this species exists. 6. Air Qualitv Lozeau Drurv's Comments: The Initial Study calculates that the Project's operational emissions of nitrogen oxides ("NOx") is 52 pounds per day ("ppd") —just slightly below PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 9 55 ppd CEQA significance threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (Initial Study page 13 ("IS 13")). Given that this figure is only 3 ppd less than the CEQA significance threshold, there is a fair argument that the Project's emissions will be significant. Response: The applicant's Air Quality consultant, MIG, responded to this concern on March 29, 2017, stating, "This assertion is incorrect both in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act and industry practices in evaluating environmental impacts. CEQA does not require nor specify any margin of error or tolerance by which an effect that is on the precipice of being significant is to be considered as such. A project's effect is either below or above a threshold." Furthermore, MIG found that the comments submitted by the reviewer did not identify any new significant information regarding the impacts of the project in regards to air quality. The issues raised in the comment letter are not supported by evidence or reasonable inference. The issues are loosely connected with marginally relevant or completely irrelevant case law and CEQA guidelines references but do not support any fair argument due the speculative and unsubstantiated nature of the claims. No new mitigation or additional analysis is required. Based on the findings contained in the revised IS, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures (including the addition and/or modification of the mitigation measures discussed above) related to aesthetics, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, agricultural resources, cultural resources, air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The IS was circulated in compliance with Article 6 (specifically Sections 15072, 15073, and 15074) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. No revisions were made to the project in response to the comments. The design of the proposed project remains the same as prior to receiving the comments that were received. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. The overall project, during construction may increase construction -related employment and, following its completion, will increase employment due to new industrial uses, and may increase employment at surrounding existing and future businesses that will provide services to the employees and customers of the project. Also, a positive fiscal impact for the City will occur through increased sales tax revenue generated by the employees and customer patronage of local businesses. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 10 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the project, the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received in response to these public notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Aerial Photo Exhibit B - Site Utilization Plan Exhibit C - Site Plan and Details Exhibit D - Floor Plan Exhibit E - Roof Plan Exhibit F - Architectural Elevations Exhibit G - Conceptual Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan Exhibit H - Preliminary WQMP Exhibit I - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit J - Photometric Plan Exhibit K - Design Review Committee Action Agenda & Comments Exhibit L - Planning Commission Staff Report from May 25, 2016 (without exhibits) Exhibit M - Planning Commission Staff Report from December 14, 2016 (without exhibits) Exhibit N - California Department of Fish and Wildlife letter of concern dated May 20, 2016 Exhibit O - Lozeau Drury, LLP. letter of concern on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, dated December 8, 2016 Exhibit P - Lozeau Drury, LLP. letter of concern on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, dated December 13, 2016 Exhibit Q - Jeremiah George letter of concern on behalf of South Coast Chapter of California Native Plant Society, dated December 14, 2016 Exhibit R - Letter from Salix Consulting, Inc. in response to CDFW comments Exhibit S - Letters from Michael Baker International in response to Lozeau Drury, LLP. and Jeremiah George comments Exhibit T - Letters from MIG in response to Lozeau Drury, LLP. comments Exhibit U - Lozeau Drury, LLP. letter of support on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, dated May 10, 2017 Exhibit V - 2015 Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly Protocol Survey Exhibit W - Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration with a location map Exhibit X - Initial Study (Parts I, II & III) Exhibit Y - Mitigation Monitoring Program Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2015-00797 CB: D P/Is D6 Pg 10 Design Review DRC2015-00797 Aerial Photo Y V A.ft 43f ! C r } .ffi iY �' �rt •,f Y r, F ' f �..JI® 1 EXHIBIT A D6 Pg11 i. nA uR r'9 �A A� c B � E� C? d� E 1 I I € a III, I` I I I I Mxas�: I I I II EXHIBIT B D6 Pg 12 s 0.® ❑ j n °e 6 e �`� 3 3 Hai £ Rig .—.. a^^^uR^S+fRj_ _ S _3 � E • S� 't i „�i Xs 3 �� tY �� 3E 3 � EE a s 7 1N3nsvj NONE im Ii��ntlM aH-E ALI` 2n z - V3P. I 1 i I za I 1 ioy I ]4- I I 1 I I I I I I I ' I I I I 1 it I �..-,••tltN" EXHIBIT C D6 Pg 13 D6 Pg 14 MF ii?1511 EXHIBIT D D6 Pg 15 OF� EXHIBIT E N N Q D6 Pa 16 as �� EXHIBIT F D6 Pg17 OF - d MA w O ww O ,r„ {e i 0=; o�< 0 N E 3 I U r �d i l ! r 1 p. �Ni IP 1pE °i:°s �'�0 k�i•i � � A E31i 1 EE,E� Eegi�y;g! �.!! yg9b d a d 01 1+ 1 A C•l� EIXIHE Bv1E E 6 E E_ 5 ° 3 I,1 13 i EEiE35 A ! Hli� E Aal IN Ep,93 �+d€Q 3i ant G�� A �eAayiS4[pi jEo!"t'S S�i HID; !'gyg9 tliag$ APIlltf3isblill/4�ilt!I��!P;PP� ° �7 5HI.10 i!:tliii!E79P tl31jEiA �iH:E HH@ �1?YdSe III III,! .<.. E 1..•e z „tll.. .s.l if ni:r:: IIII�I T} z a r. t g: U 1�1 f f l tl °vttt E w z �` i s I iy '�i I i � � L r� i of `! 5 i [ - pl _ i €"i [ es• r _ r �. .5 ' -19 d� ai'4:- of - • - [ tt !I if l.ei E 91, pP! '! , gall 5 tlI' 15 _ I _-- EXHIBIT G��.-=_--- D6 Pg 19 0%5 3EE� EP ;PI \!IA•il.• lilt IN, 5 f jljl� It, siE9' �169�i!!A ; 51 l I I . � �j• �\ � � '' of J _ P , D6 Pg21 i .I . 1 I I II I s9 \4. s�• �g'2 � '"� ' 1 e a � I IA _ I�9v t I ' r I ® ^1 \ l `rIG 6 W Q F I kt O N , 1 p. I2§ ' q W11 I I I i a. Ia W I Ilk r I ?. 1 I z i 111 I � Ar i 3i ,iz �o zE z� U o EXHIBIT H 6 E7 d r $ � a .�wm �63m m 6 00 � E�b 'yy4 z tlC� bbbbb ni��`�sf§ ii&akeae D6 Pg22 .2� �. \ , �,7 + "R:/ i . » ! � PIN ■� vm2 i >.1►AM B H g�g g1g pYp m 0 � aq a = a f ;3� i i dg- J D6 Pg24 !& /GH(- h■� t (Uh\� / . w d f & l N § 6 a- 1. 1. C. / g T EXHIBIT J ONE - � &5 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA February 16, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca Candyce Burnett _ Donald Granger X Alternates: Ray Wimberly _ Lou Munoz_ Rich Macias Additional Staff Present: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner and Dominick Perez, Associate Planner II II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS III The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015- 00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN: A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet on a parcel of 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue; APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. DRC2015-00797 Committee recommended approvaland forwarded project to PC. EXHIBIT K 1 of 2 D6 Pg27 Ar DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA NOHO C`°"M°"°" February 16, 2016 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015- B. DRC2015-00589& 00589 — GFR HOMES - A Design Review for 10 lots within the Low (L) SUSTI-19968 Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan on the east side of East Committee Avenue, south of the 210 Freeway, located at 6563 East Avenue; APN: recommended 0227-071-17. Related Files: Tentative Tract Ma SUBTT19968. approval and p forwarded project to PC. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT19968 - GFR HOMES - A request to subdivide 5.0 acres into 11 lots in the Low (L) Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan on the east side of East Avenue, south of the 210 Freeway, located at 6563 East Avenue; APN: 0227-071-17. Related Files: Design Review DRC2015- 00589. II III. PUBLIC COMMENTS II This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. IV. ADJOURNMENT 11 7.23 p.m. The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. 1, Jennifer Palacios, Office Specialist II with the Planning Department for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 4, 2016, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, 2of2 SUM DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Dominick Perez February 16, 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN: A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet on a parcel of 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue; APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Design Parameters: The project site is comprised of three (3) vacant parcels with a combined area of 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres). The site is approximately 880 feet (east to west) by approximately 594 feet (north to south). The site is vacant with limited vegetation and is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. The zoning of the abutting properties to the north, south, east and west is General Industrial (GI) District. The site generally slopes from north to south with a gradient of less than 2 percent and an elevation at the north and south sides of approximately 1,127 to 1,108, respectively. The applicant proposes to construct a logistics building with a floor area of 339,000 square feet. The building will consist of two (2) office areas (15,000 square feet), manufacturing (15,000 square feet) and warehousing (309,000 square feet). The offices will be located at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. The dock loading area, with 36 dock doors, will be located on the south side of the building. There will be a trailer storage area with 36 trailer parking spaces located adjacent to the loading dock. The dock and trailer storage areas will be screened by a concrete tilt -up wall of 8 feet in height. This wall will have textured concrete accents to match the architecture of the building. There will be an employee break area located near each office. Each will be a minimum of 500 square feet in area, as required by the Development Code, and include an overhead shade structure -The building is required to have 188 passenger vehicle parking stalls; 190 parking stalls will be provided. Landscape coverage is 15.4 percent (107,400 square feet); the minimum requirement is 10 percent (69,647 square feet) for this development district. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction, painted with a pallet of colors (red, white and grey shades). The building will have formliner textured concrete accents. The building will have secondary building materials consisting of blue reflective glass with anodized aluminum mullions. Clerestory reflective blue glass will be incorporated along the upper level of the south, west, and east elevations. Anodized aluminum trellises are provided along the first floor office windows and above the primary entrances to both office areas. Downspouts will not be visible from the exterior on any elevation of the building as they will be routed through the interior of the building. As previously mentioned, the site is located south of and adjacent to a BNSF rail line. The Development Code requires properties which adjoin existing or proposed lead or spur lines to provide rail service access. Upon obtaining the current Industrial Track Guidelines from BNSF that specify standards for railway designs, the applicant's engineer was unable to meet the guidelines as the vertical curves and grade requirements necessary could not be achieved for D6 Pg29 DRC COMMENTS DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN February 16, 2016 Page 2 this site. Furthermore, on April 17, 2015, staff received correspondence from a project engineer with BNSF Railway Co. indicating multiple issues with this site's suitability for rail service. Due to the multiple noted engineering obstacles, including the lack of ability to meet current Industrial Tract Guidelines, the BNSF project engineer stated that it is very unlikely to be approved for rail service. Therefore, because of the multiple noted issues, the site will not be developed to incorporate rail service. Primary access to the site will be provided via an extension of Santa Anita Avenue, an existing public street that currently terminates about 395 feet south of the southern property line of the project site. The extension will be approximately 510 feet in length, and will terminate with a cul- de-sac bulb. Three (3) driveways will be constructed for vehicle access to the property. The project includes the construction of a secondary, emergency access road. This road will connect the project site (at the northwest corner) to an existing road that was constructed as a condition of approval for an existing logistics building located about 815 feet to the west of the project site. Both the extension of Santa Anita Avenue and the emergency access road will cross through the aforementioned SCE properties/easements. The applicant has contacted SCE and is in the process of preparing the necessary access agreements. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: None. Secondary Issues: None. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line -of -sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone to match the building. 2. All ground -mounted equipment, including utility boxes, transformers, and back -flow devices, shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on - center. All ground -mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed otherwise by the Fire Department. 3. The employee break area shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on center with minimum dimensions of 4 inches by 12 inches. Each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural design and finishes/trim used on the building. The trellis shall be painted to match the building, and tables, chairs/benches, and waste receptacles shall be provided. t 4. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. 5. All walls, including retaining walls, exposed to public view shall be constructed of decorative masonry blocks, i.e, slump stone, split -face, or have a decorative finish such as stucco. D6 Pg30 DRC COMMENTS DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN February 16, 2016 Page 3 6. Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right- of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the 25-foot setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 7. All doors (roll -up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission, and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee recommended approval and forwarded project to Planning Commission Staff Planner: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner Members Present: Commissioner Rich Fletcher & Donald Granger, Senior Planner Additional Staff Present: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner D6 Pg31 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTNfENT DATE: May 25, 2016 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C,UCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Plan ning.Director BY: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN - A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet on a parcel of 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue; APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26. Staff has prepared a Mitigated •Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts; and • Adopt the Resolution approving Design Review DRC2016-00797 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)/Metrolink rail line and Storage Yard and Auction Facility (Copart) - Heavy Industrial (HI) District South - SCE Corridors with Power Transmission Lines and Towers - General Industrial (GI) District East - Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail Line and Southern California Edison (SCE) Facility - Heavy Industrial (HI) District West - SCE Corridors with Power Transmission Lines and Towers —General Industrial (GI) District B. General, Plan Designations: Project Site - General'] nclustrial North Heavy Industrial South - General Industrial East - Heavy Industrial West - General Industrial Site Characteristics: The project site is comprised of three (3) vacant parcels with a combined area of 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres). The site is approximately 880 feet (east to west) by approximately 594 feet (north to south). The site is vacant with limited vegetation and is ,bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side EXHIBIT L D6Pg32 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN May 25, 2016 Page 2 of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. The zoning of the abutting properties to the north, south, east and west is General Industrial (GI) District. The site generally slopes from north to south with a gradient of less than 2 percent and an elevation at the north and south sides of approximately 1,127 to 1,108, respectively. ANALYSIS A. General: The applicant, RGA Office of Architecture and Design, proposes to construct a logistics building with a floor area of 339,000 square feet. The building will consist of two (2) office areas (15,000 square feet), manufacturing (15,000 square feet) and warehousing (309,000 square feet). The offices will be located at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. The dock loading area, with 36 dock doors, will be located on the south side of the building. There will be a trailer storage area located adjacent to the loading dock. The dock and trailer storage areas will be screened by a concrete tilt -up wall of 8 feet in height. This wall will have textured concrete accents to match the architecture of the building. There will be an employee break area located near each office. Each will be a minimum of 500 square feet in area, as required by the Development Code, and include an overhead shade structure. Landscape coverage is 15.4 percent (107,400 square feet); the minimum requirement is 10 percent (69,647 square feet) for this development district. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction, painted with a pallet of colors (red, white and grey shades). The building will have formliner textured concrete accents. The building will have secondary building materials consisting of blue reflective glass with anodized aluminum mullions. Clerestory reflective blue glass will be incorporated along the upper level of the south, west, and east elevations. Anodized aluminum trellises are provided along the first floor office windows and above the primary entrances to both office areas. Downspouts will not be visible from the exterior on any elevation of the building as they will be routed through the interior of the building. As previously mentioned, the site is located south of and adjacent to a BNSF rail line. The Development Code requires properties which adjoin existing or proposed lead or spur lines to provide rail service access. Upon obtaining the current Industrial Track Guidelines from BNSF that specify standards for railway designs, the applicant's engineer was unable to meet the guidelines as the vertical curves and grade requirements necessary could not be achieved for this site. Furthermore, on April 17, 2015, staff received correspondence from a project engineer with BNSF Railway Co. indicating multiple issues with this site's suitability for rail service. Due to the multiple noted engineering obstacles, including the lack of ability to meet current Industrial Track Guidelines, the BNSF project engineer stated that it is very unlikely to be approved for rail service. Therefore, the site will not be developed to incorporate rail service. Primary access to the site will be provided via an extension of Santa Anita Avenue, an existing public street that currently terminates about 395 feet south of the southern property line of the project site. The extension will be approximately 510 feet in length, and will terminate with a cul-de-sac bulb. Three (3) driveways will be constructed for vehicle access to the property. The project includes the construction of a secondary, emergency access road. This road will connect the project site (at the northwest corner) to an existing road that was constructed as a D6 Pg33 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN May 25, 2016 Page 3 condition of approval for an existing logistics building located about 815 feet to the west of the project site. Both the extension of Santa Anita Avenue and the emergency access road will cross through the aforementioned SCE properties/easements. The applicant has contacted SCE and is in the process of preparing the necessary access agreements. B. Floor Area Analysis: Per Chapter 2, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan of the General Plan, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the General Industrial land use category is 60 percent. As the proposed building will have a floor area of 339,000 square feet and the project site has an area of 696,465 square feet, the calculated FAR for the project will be approximately 49 percent. C. Parking Calculations: Per Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, the parking calculations for the proposed project, based on the proposed mix of office and warehouse floor areas in the building, are as follows: Floor Area Parking Number of Spaces Type of Use (Square Feet Ratio Provided Proposed Building overall 339,000 Office 15,000 1/250 SF 60 Manufacturing 15,000 1/500 SF 30 Warehouse 309,000 Varies' 100 Total Required/Total Proi 1 188/1902 'For warehouse uses, the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; and 1 space per 4,000 square feet for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet. 2The trailer parking requirement is calculated separately from the standard parking requirement and is based on a ratio of one stall per dock door. The number of trailer parking spaces that is required is 36 spaces and the number that is provided is 36 spaces. D. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on February 16, 2016. Preliminary conditions were discussed. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommended approval. The Committee's conditions of approval, including dedication and construction of the northerly extension of Santa Anita Avenue, have been incorporated in the Resolution of Approval. E. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Fletcher, Oaxaca, and Granger) on February 16, 2016. No major issues were discussed in the Comments prepared by Staff (Exhibit K). However, there were several policy issues that were discussed involving equipment screening, employee break areas, fencing, walls, and gates, decorative paving and paint color. To address these, the Committee added conditions of approval requiring each of the items discussed to be incorporated into the final design of the project. The Committee then recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval that were added during the DRC meeting are incorporated in the attached Resolution with Conditions of Approval. F. AB52 Compliance: In accordance with AB52, native communities were contacted to determine interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a D6 Pg34 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL, DESIGN May 25, 2016 Page 4 result of the project. The City was contacted via email on March 7, 2016, by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in reference to the Cultural Resource Assessment. A representative of San. Manuel stated they have reviewed the report and concur with the findings and recommendations with the addition of should tribal cultural resources be uncovered during construction, that our -office is notified for consultation, The City was also contacted (letter dated March 10, 2016) by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians who stated they do not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project encompasses, but does request that the appropriate consultation continue to take place between concerned tribes, project proponents, and local agencies. They also requested that approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project. The Soboba Band wishes to defer to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians who are in closer proximity to the project. Therefore, staff has included a mitigation that states, "Prior to issuance of any grading permit; the applicant/permitee shall contact the San. Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department to coordinate tribal participation in the archaeological monitoring of the project. Tribal participants shall coordinate with the Project Archaeologist to ensure that tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground disturbances are identified, assessed and either protected in -place or mitigated accordingly". With this mitigation measure, impacts to the cultural resources will be less than significant. G. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained, in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Geology and 'Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on .the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices. Respectfully submitted, __� Candyce u-mett Planning Director CB: DP/Is D6 Pg35 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN May 25, 2016 Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L - Aerial Photo - Site Utilization Plan - Site Plan and Details - Floor Plan - Roof Plan - Architectural Elevations - Conceptual Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan - Preliminary WQMP - Conceptual Landscape Plan - Photometric Plan - Design Review Committee Agenda & Comments - Initial Study (Parts I, II & III) Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2015-00797 D6 Pg36 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 14, 2016 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C'iUCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner BY: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN: A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet on a 17-acre site in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue; APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts; and • Adopt the Resolution approving Design Review DRC2015-00797 BACKGROUND: This item was previously scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on May 25, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the Planning Department received a letter (Exhibit N) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in response to the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated on April 20, 2016. The letter provided comments and recommendations relating to the Biological Resources section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff requested a continuance to allow the applicant the time to adequately prepare a response to CDFW's comments/recommendations. These comments and recommendations are discussed in further detail within the Environmental Assessment section below. The applicant and the applicant's biologist have since worked with staff and submitted a response that addresses the concerns described in the letter. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)/Metrolink rail line and Storage Yard and Auction Facility (Copart) - Heavy Industrial (HI) District South - SCE Corridors with Power Transmission Lines and Towers - General Industrial (GI) District East - Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail Line and Southern California Edison (SCE) Facility - Heavy Industrial (HI) District West - SCE Corridors with Power Transmission Lines and Towers - General Industrial (GI) District B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - Heavy Industrial South - General Industrial East - Heavy Industrial West - General Industrial EXHIBIT M D6Pg37 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN December 14, 2016 Page 2 C. Site Characteristics: The project site is approximately 17 acres in size and is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue. The site is approximately 880 feet (east to west) by approximately 594 feet (north to south) and slopes from north to south with an elevation change from 1123 at the north to 1114 at the south. The site is surrounded to the north, south, east and west by existing industrial development and uses. D. Parking Calculations: Based on the parking ratios specified in Section 17.64 of the Development Code, the project will have sufficient parking, as shown in the table below. Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces lygt.of Use Foota a Ratio Required Provided Office 15,000 1/250 SF 60 60 Manufacturing 15,000 1/500 SF 30 30 Warehouse 309,000 15' 20,000 SF 98 100 @ 1/1,000 2nd 20,000 SF @ 1/2,000 Remaining SF 1 /4, 000 Total 188 190 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, RGA Office of Architecture and Design, proposes to construct a logistics building with a floor area of 339,000 square feet. The building will consist of two (2) office areas (15,000 square feet), manufacturing (15,000 square feet) and warehousing (309,000 square feet). The offices will be located at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. The dock loading area, with 36 dock doors, will be located on the south side of the building. There will be a trailer storage area with 36 trailer parking spaces located adjacent to the loading dock. The dock and trailer storage areas will be screened by a concrete tilt -up wall of 8 feet in height. This wall will have textured concrete accents to match the architecture of the building. There will be an employee break area located near each office. Each will be a minimum of 500 square feet in area, as required by the Development Code, and include an overhead shade structure. The building is required to have 188 passenger vehicle parking stalls; 190 parking stalls will be provided. Landscape coverage is 15.4 percent (107,400 square feet); the minimum requirement is 10 percent (69,647 square feet) for this development district. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction, painted with a palette of colors (red, white and grey shades). The building will have formliner textured concrete accents. The building will have secondary building materials consisting of blue reflective glass with anodized aluminum mullions. Clerestory reflective blue glass will be incorporated along the upper level of the south, west, and east elevations. Anodized aluminum trellises are provided along the first floor office windows and above the primary entrances to both office areas. sum PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN December 14, 2016 Page 3 Downspouts will not be visible from the exterior on any elevation of the building as they will be routed through the interior of the building. The site is located south of and adjacent to a BNSF rail line. The Development Code requires properties which adjoin existing or proposed lead or spur lines to provide rail service access. Upon obtaining the current Industrial Track Guidelines from BNSF that specify standards for railway designs, the applicant's engineer was unable to meet the guidelines as the vertical curves and grade requirements necessary could not be achieved for this site. Furthermore, on April 17, 2015, staff received correspondence from a project engineer with BNSF Railway Co. indicating multiple issues with this site's suitability for rail service. Due to the multiple noted engineering obstacles, including the lack of ability to meet current Industrial Tract Guidelines, the BNSF project engineer stated that it is very unlikely to be approved for rail service. Therefore, because of the multiple noted issues, the site will not be developed to incorporate rail service. Primary access to the site will be provided via an extension of Santa Anita Avenue, an existing public street that currently terminates about 395 feet south of the southern property line of the project site. The extension will be approximately 510 feet in length, and will terminate with a cul-de-sac bulb. Three (3) driveways will be constructed for vehicle access to the property. The project includes the construction of a secondary, emergency access road. This road will connect the project site (at the northwest corner) to an existing road that was constructed as a condition of approval for an existing logistics building located about 815 feet to the west of the project site. Both the extension of Santa Anita Avenue and the emergency access road will cross through the aforementioned SCE properties/easements. The applicant has contacted SCE and is in the process of preparing the necessary access agreements. B. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) on February 16, 2016. Preliminary conditions were discussed. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommended approval. The Committee's Conditions of Approval, including dedication and construction of the northerly extension of Santa Anita Avenue, have been incorporated in the Resolution of Approval. C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on February 16, 2016. No major issues were discussed in the DRC Comments (Exhibit K). However, there were several policy issues that were discussed involving equipment screening, employee break areas, fencing, walls, gates, decorative paving and paint color. To address these, the Committee added Conditions of Approval requiring each of the items discussed to be incorporated into the final design of the project. The Committee then recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. The Conditions of Approval that were added during the DRC meeting are incorporated in the attached Resolution with Conditions of Approval. D. Assembly Bill 52 Compliance: In accordance with AB52, native communities were contacted to determine interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. The City was contacted via email on March 7, 2016, by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in reference to the Cultural Resource Assessment. A representative of San Manuel stated they have reviewed the report and concur with the findings and recommendations with the addition of "should tribal cultural resources be uncovered during construction, that our office is notified for consultation." The City was also D6 Pg39 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN December 14, 2016 Page 4 contacted (letter dated March 10, 2016) by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians who stated they do not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project encompasses, but they requested that the appropriate consultation continue to take place between concerned tribes, project proponents, and local agencies. They also requested that "approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project." The Soboba Band wishes to defer to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians who are in closer proximity to the project. Therefore, staff has included a mitigation that states, "Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant/permittee shall contact the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department to coordinate tribal participation in the archaeological monitoring of the project. Tribal participants shall coordinate with the Project Archaeologist to ensure that tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground disturbances are identified, assessed and either protected in place or mitigated accordingly." With this mitigation measure, impacts to the cultural resources will be less than significant. E. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and was circulated on April 20, 2016. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a Planning Commission hearing that was scheduled for May 25, 2016. Due to a letter (Exhibit N) received on May 20, 2016 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Planning Department requested a continuance to allow the applicant the time to prepare a response to the concerns described in the letter. The applicant and their biologists have since worked with staff to address CDFW's concerns, which include (a) the project's potential to impact sensitive species and natural communities, (b) the adequacy and specificity of the proposed mitigation measures, and (c) the impacts of the project on an existing ephemeral stream that runs through the projects site. Below is the list summarizing each of CDFW's concerns, followed by the response to the concerns. 1. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat CDFW Concern: The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the project, prepared by Salix Consulting, Inc. in 2015, concludes that there is no potential for the Federally Endangered and State Species of Special Concern San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) to occur on -site because the site "lacks suitable habitat". However, CDFW does not concur with this determination and recommended trapping surveys to be conducted to help determine presence or absence of the species at this site. Response: The alluvial fans along the south slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains support Riversidean Alluvian Fan Sage Scrub habitat which is known to support the Federal listed San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR). SBKR generally requires the F11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN December 14, 2016 Page 5 presence of sandy to loamy soils, alluvial scrub habitat, connectivity to natural hydrological processes such as rivers and streams needed for scour to maintain openness of the alluvial scrub habitat, and moderate to low level of disturbances. Although the project site does contain the appropriate soils and low quality alluvial scrub habitat, the site is no longer subjected to the hydrologic regime associated with an active channel that carry flood waters through an area. These flows are now captured upstream and conveyed away from the project site. The project site is also subjected to heavy disturbance levels associated with off -road vehicle uses. There are several established dirt bike tracks within the project site. The lack of these latter two habitat features, hydrologic scouring and moderate to low levels of disturbance, and the fact that the site is generally surrounded by development on all four sides, is expected to prevent SBKR from inhabiting the site. Additionally, a trapping study of the site was conducted by Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. with Michael Baker International in 2016 to determine whether Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, a state species of concern, was present and would have detected SBKR if present. Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPA) was determined to be present; however, SBKR was not trapped on the project site and can be presumed to be absent. Therefore, due to the reasons listed above, no impact is anticipated to the SBKR and no mitigation is necessary. 2. Nesting Birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act CDFW Concern: CDFW noted the requirement to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as well as sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC). These requirements ultimately state that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto. The IS includes a mitigation measure requiring preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to initiating project activities during the nesting season, which the IS defines as "February 1 through August 31". Some species (i.e., owls) may commence nesting as early as January 1, while many other species may not fully fledge until fall. The Department therefore does not recommend relying on seasonal restrictions alone, to avoid impacts to nesting birds, and recommends that the mitigation measure be revised to require nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year. In order to locate nests, the Department recommends that pre -construction nesting bird surveys be required no more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbance activities, as instances of nesting could be missed if surveys are conducted sooner. Response: Revisions were made to the mitigation that now require, prior to soil disturbance, vegetation removal and issuance of a grading permit, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds to be conducted within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. This resolves the CDFW's concerns relating to nesting birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 3. Alluvial Scrub Habitat CDFW Concern: CDFW has identified the onsite vegetation community present based on the species list and the site's presence on the historic Etiwanda alluvial fan potentially as scale broom scrub (Lepidospartum alliance). Scale broom scrub has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3, with some associations within the scale broom scrub alliance (i.e., Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub) as rare as G1 S1.1. The Department considers all associations with state ranks of S1-S3 to be highly imperiled, and considers the removal D6 Pg41 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN December 14, 2016 Page 6 of alluvial fan scale broom scrub to be a significant impact. In order to reduce the impacts to alluvial fan scale broom scrub to a level that is less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City require the project proponent to purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar habitat within the watershed. Response: According to the Biological Resource Assessment prepared by Salix, the site contains an alluvial scrub plant community, which occupies an area of 3.2-acre portion of the eastern half of the 17-acre project site. Based on a site visit in April of 2016, Salix also determined a total of .09 acre of Lepidospartum squamatum was present onsite. Of the 17-acre site, this represents one half of one percent cover of the site (0.5%). According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a presence of greater than 1% of this species would classify the community as scale broom scrub which has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3. Since the site contains less than 1% cover, the habitat is not considered scale broom scrub and its removal is considered less than significant. However, the following mitigation measure is provided that addresses the loss of alluvial scrub to further reduce the impacts. Mitigation Measure: Because of the loss of suitable LAPM habitat, this habitat of 3.2 acres shall be mitigated at an offsite location at a 2:1 ratio. The applicant shall purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar alluvial scrub habitat within the watershed. All mitigation must be approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and in place prior to construction. 4. Lake and Streambed Alteration CDFW Concern: CDFW provided a summary of the process involved with any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream or use material from a streambed. This process will require the project applicant (or "entity") to provide written notification to the Department pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, the Department then determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. CDFW also stated they are concerned that the Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) included with the IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) underrepresents the streambed and riparian resources present on -site. Although the BRA characterizes the on -site willow scrub as non -riparian, the willows are associated with the stream and should be included in the evaluation of impacts. Furthermore, the Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) appears to depict only the low -flow portion of the channel. The Department recommends that the JD be revised to include the entire bed of the stream, bank, and channel, including the vegetation associated with the stream, prior to recirculating the CEQA document. Response: The applicant has since submitted the 1602 application on April 18, 2016. This should resolve CDFW's concern as to whether the process for the 1602 permit will be complied with. Regarding the concern involving the accuracy of the Jurisdictional Delineation, the Corps of Engineers has verified the wetland delineation map and issued a 404 permit based on what they consider to be waters of the U.S. CDFW's jurisdiction is "top of bank" or "riparian edge." According to CEQA Section 15073.5(a), a lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption. Furthermore, CEQA section 15073.5(b) states, a "substantial revision" of the negative declaration shall D6 Pg42 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN December 14, 2016 Page 7 mean: (1) a new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measure or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) the lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required." Following the previous circulation of the IS/MND on April 20, 2016, the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse and San Diego Black -Tailed Jackrabbit were discovered during the habitat suitability studies. Because of this, mitigation will be required to reduce the effects to these State listed species of special concern to less than significant. Therefore, this Mitigated Negative Declaration of the project was recirculated on November 7, 2016. Within the Biological Resources section of the recirculated IS/MSN, one mitigation measure was added, five mitigation measures were modified, and one mitigation measure was deleted. This includes: (1) the addition of a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore 6.4 acres similar alluvial scrub habitat within the watershed to offset the impacts to the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, (2) the modification of two mitigation measures relating to preconstruction surveys involving Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, (3) the modification of two mitigation measures relating to burrowing owl and nesting avian species, (4) the modification of a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to provide proof to the City that the Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602 Agreement) has been concluded, and (5) since focused surveys were completed prior to the recirculation of the MND, the requirement for preparation of focused surveys for special status and sensitive plant species prior to issuance of a grading permit was deleted. No new project revisions were added in response to the concerns. The design of the proposed project remains the same as prior to receiving the comments that were submitted by CDFW. A Mitigation Monitoring Program was also prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. This project is in compliance with CEQA sections 15072, 15073, and 15074. The City has provided a notice of intent to adopt the mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by State agencies for period of no less than 30 days. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Burnett Planning Director CB:DP/jy D6 Pg43 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN December 14, 2016 Page 8 Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N - Aerial Photo - Site Utilization Plan - Site Plan and Details - Floor Plan - Roof Plan - Architectural Elevations - Conceptual Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan - Preliminary WQMP - Conceptual Landscape Plan - Photometric Plan - Design Review Committee Agenda & Comments - Initial Study (Parts I, II & III) - Planning Commission Staff Report from May 25, 2016 (without exhibits) - California Department of Fish and Wildlife letter dated May 20, 2016 Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2015-00797 State of California - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN Jr. Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTONH. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region VIIIIIIIIEW 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 (909)484.0469 www.wildlife.r.a.gov May 20, 2016 nwo • t1 I RZ4:Z�a Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the DRC2015-00797 Project (project) [SCH No. 20160410711. The Department is responding to the IS and MND as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). Project Description The approximately 16-acre project site is located north of the northern terminus of Santa Anita Avenue, east of the Day Creek flood control channel, south of an existing Burlington North Santa Fe and Metrolink rail line, and west of an existing SCE facility; within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California; Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0229-271-24, -25, and -26. The proposed project includes the construction of a 339,000-square-foot Industrial building. Conserving Cafifornia's rWiff rfe Since 1870 EXHIBIT N D6Pg45 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 2 of 7 Comments and Recommendations Following review of the IS and MND, the Department is concerned about the lack of biological analysis included in the IS, and recommends that the IS and MND be revised to include a thorough and detailed analysis of the project's potential impacts on biological resources, and recirculated for further public review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. We offer the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City; the CEQA lead agency) in adequately identifying and mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources: Biological Resource Analvsis The IS identifies several special -status species with potential to occur on the project site, including Parry's spineflower, Brand's star phacelia, mesa horkelia, Los Angeles pocket mouse, San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, silvery legless lizard, coast horned lizard, burrowing owl, and California gnatcatcher. To avoid and minimize impacts to the aforementioned species, the IS proposes to require focused surveys and, if one or more special -status species is discovered on -site, formulation of a plan to relocate the special -status species found. The Department does not concur that these proposed measures are adequate to reduce potential impacts to special -status species to a level that is less than significant for the following reasons: The measures inappropriately defer analysis of the site's baseline conditions (i.e., focused surveys) and formulation of specific avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to some future time. While it is not always possible to devise a complete, specific, and fully detailed mitigation plan while the project is still in the early planning stages, it is not appropriate to adopt an MND unless the lead agency is reasonably certain that the proposed project will have no significant effects. Such certainty is not possible if the analysis of the baseline conditions of the site (including the species present) and formulation of specific mitigation measures is deferred until after the adoption of the MND. Furthermore, the lack of public review of the mitigation plan deprives the public of the opportunity to comment on the mitigation plan's adequacy, feasibility, and enforceability. "[I]t is improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval; instead, the determination of whether a project will have significant environmental impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate those impacts, must occur before the project is approved" (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 621 [91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571] (CNPS), citing Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 [248 Cal. Rptr. 352] (Sundstrom) and Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359 [43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1701 (Gentry).) 2. The Department generally does not support the use of translocation or transplantation as the primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 3 of 7 rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these efforts are experimental and the outcome unreliable (Dodd & Siegel 1991; Germano et al. 2015; Menges 2008; and Shier & Swaisgood 2011). The Department has found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals, and their habitats. The Department requests that appropriate focused, species -specific surveys be conducted prior to recirculation of the CEQA document, and that the revised and recirculated document include the survey results. The revised document should also contain a thorough and detailed analysis of the project's potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on biological resources, and appropriately specific, adequate, feasible, and enforceable mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. To assist with review, an accompanying map or maps showing the areas of impact and any proposed mitigation locations should also be included. If special -status species are discovered on -site, the Department is available to assist the City in identifying appropriate mitigation measures prior to recirculating the document. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the project, prepared by Salix Consulting, Inc. in 2015, concludes that there is no potential for the Federally Endangered and State Species of Special Concern San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR; Dipodomys merriami parvus) to occur on -site because the site "lacks suitable habitat". The BRA also refers to the 2006 Summary of Special -status Biological Resource Investigations Conducted between 2003-2006 at the Proposed Etiwanda Peaker Project Site (Etiwanda Summary report), which includes the results of small mammal trapping conducted in 2003 over the Etiwanda Peaker Site located directly east of the project site. The Department does not concur with this conclusion for the following reasons: 1. The site does support potentially suitable habitat for SBKR. It is unclear how the conclusion that no suitable habitaffor the species exists on -site was reached; however, the presence of sandy, loamy soils and alluvial scrub are classic elements of SKBR habitat, and the site is within SBKR historical range. 2. Habitat disturbance is not sufficient to determine that SBKR are not present. Disturbed but undeveloped habitat areas within the Santa Ana River floodplain, including water spreading grounds, airports, mining operations, and agricultural areas, have been known to support SBKR in limited numbers (USFWS 2009). 3. The small mammal trapping surveys performed in 2003 appear to have been limited to the adjacent Etiwanda site. Although the Etiwanda Summary report refers to negative surveys results in the historic Etiwanda Creek channel to the D6 Pg47 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 4 of 7 east of the Etiwanda Peaker Site, no mention is made of trapping within the channel on the site to the west (i.e., the current project site). Based on historic aerial photography, the current project site supported what was likely better quality SBKR habitat than the Etiwanda Peaker Site did in 2003. Failure to detect SBKR on the Etiwanda Peaker Site in focused surveys conducted over a decade ago is inadequate to determine the species' absence on the current project site. In order to determine whether SBKR are present on -site, we strongly recommend that a qualified and permitted biologist conduct focused trapping surveys in coordination with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and that the survey results be included in the revised and recirculated CEQA document. Nestinq Birds and Migratory Bird Treatv Act Please note that it is the project proponent's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Migratory non -game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) also afford protective measures as follows: Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 states that is it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of - prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto; and Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. The IS includes a mitigation measure requiring preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to initiating project activities during the nesting season, which the IS defines as "February 1 through August 31". Please note that some species (i.e., owls) may commence nesting as early as January 1, while many other species may not fully fledge until fall. The Department therefore does not recommend relying on seasonal restrictions alone, to avoid impacts to nesting birds, and recommends that the mitigation measure be revised to require nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year. In order to locate nests, the Department recommends that pre -construction nesting bird surveys be required no more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbance activities, as instances of nesting could be missed if surveys are conducted sooner. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 5 of 7 Alluvial Scrub Habitat The IS identifies approximately 7 acres of "alluvial scrub" habitat on -site, characterized by California buckwheat (Erioganum fasciculafum), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), scale broom (Lepidospartum squamafum), pine goldenbrush (Ericameria pinfolia), tree tobacco (Nicofiana g/auca), and giant reed (Arundo donax). The IS states that the ruderal nature of the site prevents the "alluvial scrub" from being identified as a classic habitat type. However, the Department has identified the vegetation community present based on the species list and the site's presence on the historic Etiwanda alluvial fan: according to Sawyer et al. (2009), the presence of >1 % cover of Lepidospartum squamatum within vegetation stands in alluvial environments would categorize the community as scale broom scrub (Lepidosparfum alliance). Scale broom scrub has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3, with some associations within the scale broom scrub alliance (i.e., Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub) as rare as G1 S1.1. The Department considers all associations with state ranks of S1-S3 to be highly imperiled, and considers the removal of approximately 7 acres of alluvial fan scale broom scrub to be a significant impact. In order to reduce the impacts to alluvial fan scale broom scrub to a level that is less than significant, the Department recommends that the City require the project proponent to purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar habitat within the watershed. While the amount (acreage) of habitat that is appropriate will vary based on the location of the proposed mitigation area, the amount and type of enhancement and/or restoration proposed, and whether (a) the project site and (b) the proposed mitigation site is occupied by special -status species, the Department recommends that the mitigation site include no less than 35 acres of alluvial fan scale broom scrub. A higher acreage may be warranted if the proposed mitigation site requires little enhancement, is located far away from the project site (i.e., within a separate watershed), is not occupied by or available to special status species, and/or possesses other attributes that diminish its long term conservation value. The Department is available to assist the City in evaluating the proposed mitigation prior to the document's recirculation. Lake and Streambed Alteration For any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream or use material from a streambed, the project applicant (or "entity') must provide written notification to the Department pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, the Department then determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. The Department's issuance of an LSA Agreement is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, the revised and recirculated CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with the Department is 611 a,. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 6 of 7 recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The Department is concerned that the Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) included with the IS/MND underrepresents the streambed and riparian resources present on -site. Although the BRA characterizes the on -site willow scrub as non -riparian, the willows are associated with the stream and should be included in the evaluation of impacts. Furthermore, the JD appears to depict only the low -flow portion of the channel. The Department recommends that the JD be revised to include the stream's entire bed, bank, and channel, including the vegetation associated with the stream, prior to recirculating the CEQA document. Further Coordination The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS and MND for the DRC2015-00797 Project (SCH No. 2016041071), and requests that the City address the Department's comments and concerns prior to the MND's adoption. If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments, please contact Gabriele Quillman at (909) 980-3818 or gabriele.quillman@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, es CN air C�rwi e onalKanager cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Literature Cited Dodd, C.K, and R.A. Siegel. 1991. Relocation, Repatriation, and Translocation of Amphibians and Reptiles: Are They Conservation Strategies That Work? Herpetologica, 47(3), 336-350 Germano, J.M. et al. 2015. Mitigation -Driven Translocations: Are We Moving Wildlife in the Right Direction? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(2), 100-105 Menges, E.S. 2008. Restoration demography and genetics of plants: when is a translocation successful? Australian Journal of Botany, 56(3), 187-196 D6 Pg50 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 7 of 7 Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California Vegetation, 2"d ed. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California. http://vegetation.cnps.org/ Shier, D.M. and R.R. Swaisgood. 2012. Fitness costs of neighborhood disruption in translocations of a solitary mammal, Conservation Biology, 26(1), 116- 123 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). August 14, 2009. 5-Year Review for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). February 26, 2016. D6 Pg51 DRURY BY EMAIL and OVERNIGHT MAIL December 8, 2016 Dominick Perez, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga (909) 477-2750 10500 Civic Center Dr Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Email: Dominick. Perez@cityofrc.us Re: DRC2015-00797 Santa Anita Warehouse — Oakmont Industrial Group Initial Study I Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Perez: This letter is submitted on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 783, and its members living in San Bernardino County (collectively, "LIUNA" or "Commenters") concerning the City of Rancho Cucamonga's (the "City") Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") prepared for the project known as DRC2015-00797, also known as the Santa Anita Warehouse, proposed by the Oakmont Industrial Group (the "Project"). Commenters request that the City withdraw the IS/MND and instead prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project, as there is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant unmitigated impacts on the environment as discussed below. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts and to adopt feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce the impacts to the extent feasible. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes the construction of a 338,470-square foot warehouse on 16.29 acres located north of 6th Street to the north of the termination of Santa Anita Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The warehouse includes 109,567 square feet EXHIBIT 0 D6Pg52 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 December 8, 2016 Page 2 of 8 of landscaping, 191 automobile parking spaces, 36 trailer parking spaces, 36 loading docks, and 20 bicycle parking spaces (10 short term and 10 long term). STANDING Members of LIUNA Local Union No. 783 live, work, and recreate in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately mitigated Project, just as would the members of any nearby homeowners association, community group or environmental group. Hundreds of LIUNA Local Union No. 783 members live and work in areas that will be affected by air pollution generated by the project. Therefore, LIUNA Local Union No. 783 and its members have a direct interest in ensuring that the Project is adequately analyzed and that its environmental and public health impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent feasible. Pursuant to CEQA, LIUNA Local Union No. 783 submits these comments in response to the City's proposed IS/MND. Under the circumstances presented here, CEQA clearly requires the preparation of an EIR and accordingly, the City should decline to adopt the proposed IS/MND. LEGALSTANDARD As the California Supreme Court recently held, "fi]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 319-320 ["CBE v. SCAQMD"], citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505.) "The 'foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 109 ["CBE v. CRA"].) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 927.) The EIR is an "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." (Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d D6 Pg53 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 December 8, 2016 Page 3 of 8 376, 392.) The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self- government." (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927.) An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15371 ["CEQA Guidelines"]), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100, 21064.) Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration ... has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." (Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.) Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and ... there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." (Public Resources Code §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.41h 322, 331.) In that context, "may" means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 896, 904- 905.) Under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect —even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 150-15; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 928.) The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: D6 Pg54 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 December 8, 2016 Page 4 of 8 This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274.) The Courts have explained that"'it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 928 [emphasis in original].) As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes ... expert opinion." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(5).) CEQA Guidelines demand that where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the environmental effects to be significant and prepare an. EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5); Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra,124 Cal.AppAth at 935.) "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, §-21068; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." .(No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 83.) In Pocket Protectors, the court explained how expert opinion is considered. The Court limited agencies and courts to weighing the admissibility of the evidence. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 935.) In the context of reviewing a negative declaration, "neither the lead agency nor a court may'weigh' conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance." (Id.) Where a disagreement arises regarding the validity of a negative declaration, the courts require an EIR. As the Court explained, "[i]t is the function of an. EIR, not a negative declaration, to resolve conflicting claims, based on substantialevidence, as to the environmental effects of a project." (Id.) D6 Pg55 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 December 8, 2016 Page 5 of 8 DISCUSSION A. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. An EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the entire record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 CalAth at 319-20; Public Resources Code § 21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927.) As set forth below, there is a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts from the operation of the Project. Therefore, the City is required to prepare an EIR to evaluate the Project's impacts and analyze mitigation measures needed to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. 1. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will Result in Significant Unmitigated Impacts to Air Quality. The IS/MND used the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMOd.2013.2.2 ("CaIEEMod") to calculate emissions from the Project. However, on information and belief we conclude that several of the assumptions used and values input into CaIEEMod were inconsistent with both information disclosed in the IS/MND as well as recommended procedures and values set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") for a high -cube warehouse (the type of Project at issue). Had the Project's emissions been calculated using the correct parameters, the Project would have a potentially significant impact on air quality. As such, the Project's air quality impacts have not been properly analyzed and mitigated. Accordingly, the following points constitute substantial evidence that support a fair argument that the IS/MND failed to properly calculate the Project's emissions and that the Project will thus have significant unmitigated impacts. The Initial Study calculates that the Project's operational emissions of nitrogen oxides ("NOx") is 52 pounds per day ("plod") —just slightly below 55 ppd CEQA significance threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (Initial Study page 13 ("IS 13")). Given that this figure is only 3 ppd less than the CEQA significance threshold, there is a fair argument that the Project's emissions will be significant. This could be due to any calculation errors or if there is even a slight increase in traffic related to the Project. "[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts. 'If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.' (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 311; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544). D6 Pg56 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 December 8, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Furthermore, the Project will have significant cumulative NOx impacts. Under CEQA, the EIR must analyze the relevant area affected in its analysis of cumulative impacts. (14 CCR §15130(b)(3)). The area affected depends on the nature of the impact being analyzed. (Id.) For example, for air quality impacts, the relevant region for cumulative impacts would be the air basin. Kings Co. Farm Bureau v. Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721; Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 430 (1985). For urban decay impacts the relevant geographic area would be the urban region. Bakersfield Citizens v. Bakersfield, 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1216 (2004). Since NOx is a regional pollutant, which contributes to regional ozone pollution, the relevant area is the South Coast Air Basin. Rather than looking at the cumulative impacts of foreseeable projects in the air basin, he Initial Study improperly limits its cumulative impact analysis to only the City of Rancho Cucamonga. IS 14. There are literally millions of square feet of similar warehouse projects being proposed and constructed throughout the air basin. All of these projects are reasonably foreseeable. Together, they will have significant cumulative NOx impacts, adding to already unacceptable ozone levels in the region. (Kings Co Farm Burea, supra). For example, there is the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment project in the nearby City of Rialto (16 miles away), which contains 4 million square feet of warehouse space. http://vourrialto.com/wo-contenVuploads/2015/06/REN-DSEIR Print-Version- 2106.06.27-foxit.pdf. The Colony Commerce Center Project in the nearby City of Ontario will have 1.3 million square feet of warehouse space. http://www. onta rioca.g ov/plan n ing/reports/envi ronmental-impact-repo rts/colon v- commerce-center-specific-plan-draft-eir. These projects together with the proposed DRC2015-00797 project will clearly have significant cumulative NOx impacts. Therefore an EIR is required. 2. The Project Will Have Significant Unmitigated Biological Impacts. The Initial Study and biological survey conclude that the protected San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit is found on site. IS 17. However, the IS proposes no mitigation, stating: San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit was identified on -site by Michael Baker in 2014 during a standard habitat assessment and again 2016 during a focused habitat suitability assessment. No additional mitigation is proposed for this species. No relocation will be required, as jackrabbits readily scatter when disturbed and Mitigation Measure 3 is assumed to partially mitigate for the loss of habitat for this species to achieve a less than significant Impact. D6 Pg57 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, DRC2015-00797 December 8, 2016 Page 7 of 8 This conclusion that no mitigation is required because rabbits "scatter when disturbed" is simply preposterous, and may constitute a violation of the Endangered Species Act. Species are "taken" and adversely impacted by the destruction of habitat. If an animal's home is destroyed, this adversely affects a species, even if the species is a fast jackrabbit and can outrun a bulldozer. In short, forcing a protected species to "run away" does not mitigate the impact. In fact, the act of "scattering" protected species is it itself a significant adverse impact requiring an EIR. Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal, 4th 204, 231 (Cal 2015). Similarly, the Initial Study indicates that the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) has been positively identified on site. IS 17. The IS proposes a mitigation measure to trap and relocate the species. IS 17. However, the process of trapping and relocating will necessarily result in protected species being killed either during the relocation process or after. For example, in the case of Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal. 4th 204, 231 (2015), the Department of Fish and Wildlife proposed to capture and relocate of the stickleback as a conservation measure to protect the fish and aid in its recovery. The Supreme Court held that since the protected, fish would be injured and possibly killedduring relocation, "the agency may not rely in a CEQA document on the prospect of capture and relocation as mitigating a project's adverse impacts." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal. 4th 204, 232 (Cal. 2015). This measure fails to reduce impacts to less than significant and an EIR is required to analyze this impact and propose all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has submitted written comments on the project concluding that the environmental' baseline has, not been adequately described, there may be several additional species on the site, and impacts have not been adequately mitigated. (Exhibit A). The Initial Study fails to adequately respond to DFW's comments. DFW's comments create a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated environmental impacts. 3. The Project will Have Significant Impacts Because It will Fill -In a Streambed. As discussed by DFW, the Project involves entirely filling a streambed, which runs directly through the center of the site. (Exhibit A). DFW concludes that the wetland delineation prepared for the Project may underestimate the streambed and wetlands on site. Filling a wetland or streambed is a significant impact under CEQA. Mira Monte Homeowners Assn v. County of Ventura, 165 Cal. App. 3d 357 (1985). The failure to adequately delineate the streambed, and the act of filing the streambed Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 December 8, 2016 Page 8 of 8 constitute significant.adverse impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR so that adequate mitigation measures and alternatives may be considered. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. We reserve the right to supplement these comments during public hearings concerning the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997). Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Richard Drury Lozeau Drury LLP D6 Pg59 EXHIBIT A (Related to Letter from Lozeau/Drury dated December 8, 2016) State of California - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor UDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd„ Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 484-0459 www.vAldlife.ca.gov May 20, 2016 Mr. Dominick Perez Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) for the DRC2015-00797 Project (project) [SCH No. 2016041071]. The Department is responding to the IS and MND as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). Protect Description The approximately 16-acre project site is located north of the northern terminus of Santa Anita Avenue, east of the Day Creek flood control channel, south of an existing Burlington North Santa Fe and Metrolink rail line, and west of an existing SCE facility; within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California; Assessors Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0229-271-24, -25, and -26. The proposed project includes the construction of a 339,000-square-foot industrial building. Conserving Cafifornia's Wiffife Since 1870 D6 Pg61 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 2 of 7 Comments and Recommendations Following review of the IS and MND, the Department is concerned about the lack of biological analysis included in the IS, and recommends that the IS and MND be revised to include a thorough and detailed analysis of the project's potential impacts on biological resources, and recirculated for further public review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 16073.5. We offer the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City; the CEQA lead agency) in adequately identifying and mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources: Biological Resource Analvsis The IS identifies several special -status species with potential to occur on the project site, including Parry's spineflower, Brand's star phacelia, mesa horkelia, Los Angeles pocket mouse, San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, silvery legless lizard, coast horned lizard, burrowing owl, and California gnatcatcher. To avoid and minimize impacts to the aforementioned species, the IS proposes to require focused surveys and, if one or more special -status species is discovered on -site, formulation of a plan to relocate the special -status species found. The Department does not concur that these proposed measures are adequate to reduce potential impacts to special -status species to a level that is less than significant for the following reasons: The measures inappropriately defer analysis of the site's baseline conditions (i.e., focused surveys) and formulation of specific avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to some future time. While it is not always possible to devise a complete, specific, and fully detailed mitigation plan while the project is still in the early planning stages, it is not appropriate to adopt an MND unless the lead agency is reasonably certain that the proposed project will have no significant effects. Such certainty is not possible if the analysis of the baseline conditions of the site (including the species present) and formulation of specific mitigation measures is deferred until after the adoption of the MND. Furthermore, the lack of public review of the mitigation plan deprives the public of the opportunity to comment on the mitigation plan's adequacy, feasibility, and enforceability. "[I]t is improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval; instead, the determination of whether a project will have significant environmental impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate those impacts, must occur before the project is approved" (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 621 [91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571] (CNPS), citing Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 [248 Cal. Rptr. 3521 (Sundstrom) and Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359 [43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1701 (Gentry).) 2. The Department generally does not support the use of translocation or transplantation as the primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to D6 Pg62 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 3 of 7 rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these efforts are experimental and the outcome unreliable (Dodd & Siegel 1991; Germano et al. 2015; Menges 2008; and Shier & Swaisgood 2011). The Department has found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals, and their habitats. The Department requests that appropriate focused, species -specific surveys be conducted prior to recirculation of the CEQA document, and that the revised and recirculated document include the survey results. The revised document should also contain a thorough and detailed analysis of the project's potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on biological resources, and appropriately specific, adequate, feasible, and enforceable mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. To assist with review, an accompanying map or maps showing the areas of impact and any proposed mitigation locations should also be included. If special -status species are discovered on -site, the Department is available to assist the City in identifying appropriate mitigation measures prior to recirculating the document. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the project, prepared by Salix Consulting, Inc. in 2015, concludes that there is no potential for the Federally Endangered and State Species of Special Concern San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR; Dipodomys merriami parvus) to occur on -site because the site "lacks suitable habitat". The BRA also refers to the 2006 Summary of Special -status Biological Resource Investigations Conducted between 2003-2006 at the Proposed Etiwanda Peaker Project Site (Etiwanda Summary report), which includes the results of small mammal trapping conducted in 2003 over the Etiwanda Peaker Site located directly east of the project site. The Department does not concur with this conclusion for the following reasons: The site does support potentially suitable habitat for SBKR. It is unclear how the conclusion that no suitable habitat for the species exists on -site was reached; however, the presence of sandy, loamy soils and alluvial scrub are classic elements of SKBR habitat, and the site is within SBKR historical range. 2. Habitat disturbance is not sufficient to determine that SBKR are not present. Disturbed but undeveloped habitat areas within the Santa Ana River floodplain, including water spreading grounds, airports, mining operations, and agricultural areas, have been known to support SBKR in limited numbers (USFWS 2009). 3. The small mammal trapping surveys performed in 2003 appear to have been limited to the adjacent Etiwanda site. Although the Etiwanda Summary report refers to negative surveys results in the historic Etiwanda Creek channel to the D6 Pg63 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 4 of 7 east of the Etiwanda Peaker Site, no mention is made of trapping within the channel on the site to the west (i.e., the current project site). Based on historic aerial photography, the current project site supported what was likely better quality SBKR habitat than the Etiwanda Peaker Site did in 2003, Failure to detect SBKR on the Etiwanda Peaker Site in focused surveys conducted over a decade ago is inadequate to determine the species' absence on the current project site. In order to determine whether SBKR are present on -site, we strongly recommend that a qualified and permitted biologist conduct focused trapping surveys in coordination with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and that the survey results be included in the revised and recirculated CEQA document. Nesting Birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act Please note that it is the project proponent's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Migratory non -game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 of seq.). In addition, sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) also afford protective measures as follows: Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 states that is it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of - prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto; and Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. The IS includes a mitigation measure requiring preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to initiating project activities during the nesting season, which the IS defines as "February 1 through August 31". Please note that some species (i.e., owls) may commence nesting as early as January 1, while many other species may not fully fledge until fall. The Department therefore does not recommend relying on seasonal restrictions alone, to avoid impacts to nesting birds, and recommends that the mitigation measure be revised to require nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year. In order to locate nests, the Department recommends that pre -construction nesting bird surveys be required no more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbance activities, as instances of nesting could be missed if surveys are conducted sooner. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 5 of 7 Alluvial Scrub Habitat The IS identifies approximately 7 acres of "alluvial scrub" habitat on -site, characterized by California buckwheat (Erioganum fasciculatum), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), pine goldenbrush (Ericameria pinfolia), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and giant reed (Arundo donax). The IS states that the ruderal nature of the site prevents the "alluvial scrub" from being identified as a classic habitat type. However, the Department has identified the vegetation community present based on the species list and the site's presence on the historic Etiwanda alluvial fan: according to Sawyer et al. (2009), the presence of >1 % cover of Lepidospartum squamatum within vegetation stands in alluvial environments would categorize the community as scale broom scrub (Lepidospartum alliance). Scale broom scrub has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3, with some associations within the scale broom scrub alliance (i.e., Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub) as rare as G1 SIA. The Department considers all associations with state ranks of S1-S3 to be highly imperiled, and considers the removal of approximately 7 acres of alluvial fan scale broom scrub to be a significant impact. In order to reduce the impacts to alluvial fan scale broom scrub to a level that is less than significant, the Department recommends that the City require the project proponent to purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar habitat within the watershed. While the amount (acreage) of habitat that is appropriate will vary based on the location of the proposed mitigation area, the amount and type of enhancement and/or restoration proposed, and whether (a) the project site and (b) the proposed mitigation site is occupied by special -status species, the Department recommends that the mitigation site include no less than 35 acres of alluvial fan scale broom scrub. A higher acreage may be warranted if the proposed mitigation site requires little enhancement, is located far away from the project site (i.e., within a separate watershed), is not occupied by or available to special status species, and/or possesses other attributes that diminish its long term conservation value. The Department is available to assist the City in evaluating the proposed mitigation prior to the document's recirculation. Lake and Streambed Alteration For any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream or use material from a streambed, the project applicant (or "entity') must provide written notification to the Department pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, the Department then determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. The Department's issuance of an LSA Agreement is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, the revised and recirculated CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with the Department is D6 Pg65 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 6 of 7 recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The Department is concerned that the Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) included with the IS/MND underrepresents the streambed and riparian resources present on -site. Although the BRA characterizes the on -site willow scrub as non -riparian, the willows are associated with the stream and should be included in the evaluation of impacts, Furthermore, the JD appears to depict only the low -flow portion of the channel. The Department recommends that the JD be revised to include the stream's entire bed, bank, and channel, including the vegetation associated with the stream, prior to recirculating the CEQA document. Further Coordination The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS and MND for the DRC2015-00797 Project (SCH No. 2016041071), and requests that the City address the Department's comments and concerns prior to the MND's adoption. If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments, please contact Gabriele Quillman at (909) 980-3818 or gabriele.quillman@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, /eina Nair e�anager cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Literature Cited Dodd, C.K, and R.A. Siegel. 1991. Relocation, Repatriation, and Translocation of Amphibians and Reptiles: Are They Conservation Strategies That Work? Herpetologica, 47(3), 336-350 Germano, J.M. et al. 2015. Mitigation -Driven Translocations: Are We Moving Wildlife in the Right Direction? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(2), 100-105 Menges, E.S. 2008. Restoration demography and genetics of plants: when is a translocation successful? Australian Journal of Botany, 56(3), 187-196 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration DRC2015-00797 Project SCH No. 2016041071 Page 7 of 7 Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and'J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California Vegetation, 2"d ed. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California. http://vegetation.cnps.org/ Shier, D.M. and R.R. Swaisgood. 2012. Fitness costs of neighborhood disruption in translocations of a solitary mammal. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 116- 123 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). August 14, 2009. 5-Year Review for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). https://www.fws.gov/carisbad/SpeciesStatusList/5YR/20090814 5YR SB KR.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2016. D6 Pg67 DRURY BY EMAIL and HAND -DELIVERY December 13, 2016 Dominick Perez, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Email: Dominick.Perez@cityofrc.us Re: DRC2015-00797 Santa Anita Warehouse — Oakmont Industrial Group Initial Study I Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Perez: This supplemental comment letter is submitted on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 783, and its members living in San Bernardino County (collectively, "LIUNA" or "Commenters") concerning the City of Rancho Cucamonga's (the "City") Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") prepared for the project known as DRC2015-00797, also known as the Santa Anita Warehouse, proposed by the Oakmont Industrial Group (the "Project"). These comments supplement the earlier comment letter dated December 8, 2016 also submitted on behalf of LIUNA. LIUNA wanted to bring to the City's attention a substantial inconsistency between the proposed IS/MND and the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("2010 General Plan EIR") and findings on which the IS/MND relies. The IS/MND's air quality analysis concludes that the Project will have less than substantial air quality impacts because it will implement the mitigation measures identified in the 2010 General Plan EIR. However, the 2010 General Plan EIR and the accompanying determination by the City that implementation of the General Plan would have significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of numerous air pollutants assumed that all of the mitigations identified in the 2010 General Plan EIR would be implemented. In other words, even if every single project in the City included the air emission mitigations identified in the General Plan EIR, the City already determined that those mitigations would not prevent the anticipated significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The IS/MND, contrary to the 2010 General Plan EIR and the City's statement of overriding considerations, claims that the General Plan EIR mitigations now will avoid cumulative air quality impacts. The IS/MND goes so far as to cite the 2010 General Plan EIR for this proposition. That prior EIR, in fact, draws the opposite conclusion. Thus, the IS/MND's air quality analysis lacks EXHIBIT P D6Pg68 LIUNA Comments - Santa Anita Warehouse, Oakmont Industrial Group December 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5 any evidence to support the conclusion that the Project's cumulative air quality impacts would not be significant. Moreover, because the 2010 General Plan EIR already determined that air quality emissions from the Project and other development consistent with the City's General Plan will have unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts and the Project proposes the same mitigations already considered and deemed inadequate to avoid these impacts by the General Plan EIR, the City cannot now rely on an IS/MND applying the same inadequate mitigations. The City's previous analysis and statement of overriding considerations are substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Accordingly, the City must prepare an EIR addressing that continuing admitted impact and make a new statement of overriding considerations. LIUNA also wanted to bring to the City's attention the expert review of the Project and IS/MND by Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Dr. Smallwood points out numerous flaws in the biological surveys relied upon by the IS/MND and identifies numerous significant impacts that the Project may have on wildlife, including sensitive and listed species, that have either been identified or likely use the Project site. Dr. Smallwood's comments are attached and incorporated by reference as well as summarized below. A. Mitigations from the 2010 General Plan EIR Which The City Determined Were Not Sufficient to Avoid Cumulative Air Quality Impacts, Cannot Now Be Sufficient to Avoid Those Impacts For The Project. The 2010 General Plan EIR concluded that, even after implementation of the air quality mitigation measures, its implementation would nevertheless result in significant and unavoidable long-term emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. The General Plan EIR explains this at several points: The proposed 2010 General Plan Update includes many goals and policies, described above, that would reduce long-term criteria air pollutant emissions. Also, MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2 describe a range of measures to be applied to future projects, as feasible, to reduce emissions. However, the anticipated reduction in emissions with implementation of such measures is not quantifiable at this time. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant and unavoidable direct impact related to emissions of PM10 and PM2.5.... General Plan EIR, p. 4.3-31. Likewise, the General Plan EIR states: As discussed above, the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable direct impact related to emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 with implementation of identified 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies, MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2, as feasible. Therefore, because SCAB is designated non -attainment for particulates, this significant and unavoidable direct impact would also be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for PM10 and PM2.5. E. LIUNA Comments - Santa Anita Warehouse, Oakmont Industrial Group December 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Id., p. 4.3-32. Thus, the General Plan EIR identifies Impact 4.3-33: Impact 4.3c:... Estimated net emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 would result in a significant and unavoidable direct impact. Therefore, because SCAB is designated nonattainment for particulates, this significant and unavoidable direct impact would also be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for PM10 and PM2.5 after implementation of proposed 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies, MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2, as feasible. Id., p. 4.3-33. MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2 of the General Plan EIR lists out the mitigation measures which the EIR included in its significant impact determination. Id., p. 4.3-34 — 4.3-36. The General Plan EIR is quite explicit, providing a clear determination of the "Level of Significance After Mitigation" that the General Plan will result in cumulative impacts that are "Significant and Unavoidable for PM10 and PM2.5." Id., p. 4.3-36. The IS/MND's cumulative air quality impact discussion exclusively relies upon the 2010 General Plan EIR's analysis and incorporates the FEIR's air pollutant emission mitigations. However, the IS/MND ignores the fact that the unavoidable air impacts identified in the General Plan FEIR will result even after implementation of the mitigations identified in the FEIR and now incorporated into the IS/MND. On the contrary, the IS/MND misstates the FEIR as finding that the PM2.5 and PM10 cumulative impacts would be significant "if they cannot be mitigated on a project level basis to a level less -than - significant." IS/MND, p. 11. See id, p. 14. No such qualifier is found in the FEIR's significance determination. Nor would it make sense that the identified cumulative impacts would ever be mitigated by a single project. Where, as here, the mitigations identified in the General Plan EIR are the mitigations now assigned to the Project, there obviously is no change to the cumulative impacts already anticipated by the 2010 General Plan EIR. Ignoring the actual language of the 2010 General Plan EIR, the IS/MND states that, "with implementation of the following mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize long-term, operational air quality Impacts, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be less -than -significant." IS/MND, p. 14. See id., p. 15 ("With implementation of mitigation measures listed in subsection b) above from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR, which are designed to minimize long-term, operational air quality impacts, cumulative impacts will be less -than - significant"); p. 11 ("With implementation of the following best practices and mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize short- term air quality impacts, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be less -than - significant"). This conclusion is fundamentally flawed and is not supported by substantial evidence because, even with the General Plan EIR mitigations, the City already has concluded in that EIR that cumulative impacts from PM10 and PM2.5 would nevertheless continue to occur. For shorter -term construction emissions, the IS/MND also states: The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the future build out of the City. Based upon on the Urban Emissions Model (URBEM1S7G) estimates In D6 Pg70 LIUNA Comments - Santa Anita Warehouse, Oakmont Industrial Group December 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan (FPEIR), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore, they would all be cumulatively considerable if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less - than -significant. This city-wide increase in emissions was identified as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the Section 4.3 of the General Plan FPEIR. IS/MND, p. 11. Again, as noted above, the 2010 General Plan EIR found unavoidable cumulative air pollution impacts after the identified mitigation was applied. Thus, even if a particular project applies the'FEIR's mitigations, it does not alter the existing conclusion that a project's emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 will still contribute to a significant cumulate particulate matter problem. In addition to lacking substantial evidence justifying the City's inconsistent conclusions regarding cumulative PM2.5 and PM10 emissions, CEQA as a matter of law also forbids the City from using an IS/MND to effectively erase a prior EIR determination of unavoidable significant impacts and statement of overriding considerations from which it is tiering. The IS/MND tiers from the 2010 General Plan EIR. IS/MND, p. 52. In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 122-125, the court of appeal held that when a "first tier" EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare second tier EIRs for later tiered projects to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are "mitigated or avoided." Id. citing CEQA Guidelines §15152(f). The court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts were not "adequately addressed" in the first tier EIR since they were not "mitigated or avoided." Id. Thus, significant effects disclosed in first tier EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been "adequately addressed," in a way that ensures the effects will be "mitigated or avoided." Id. Such a second tier EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and, a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, "The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA's role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or, other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support." Id. at 124-125. This reasoning applies in particular here where the mitigation for the Project are incorporated from the previous 2010 General Plan EIR. If those mitigations were insufficient to address the significant cumulative particulate matter emissions in the General Plan, they are equally unable to address those impacts when applied to the current Project. The FEIR itself gives rise to a fair argument that the Project's particulate matter emissions may have significant cumulative impacts, requiring the preparation of a new EIR for the Project. D6 Pg71 LIUNA Comments - Santa Anita Warehouse, Oakmont Industrial Group December 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5 B. Dr. Smallwood's Expert Review is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project May Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources Requiring the Preparation of an EIR. Dr. Smallwood's expert review of the Project and IS/MND has identified a number of deficiencies in the analysis and potential environmental impacts. Dr. Smallwood identifies numerous serious flaws in the surveys conducted for the Project and a general lack of compliance with recognized survey protocols established by the Department of Fish & Wildlife. Smallwood Comment. Dr. Smallwood identifies numerous sensitive animals that his review of relevant databases indicates may occur at the site and which were not assessed by the City or its consultants. Id, pp. 2-4. He focuses his concerns on six species of note - Los Angeles pocket mouse , San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Silvery legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and burrowing owl - for which the IS/MND and accompanying biological assessments include unsupported conclusions, faulty survey techniques, ineffective mitigations, and lack of understanding of the particular species and its habitat. Id., pp. 5-9. Dr. Smallwood points out the IS/MND's glaring omission of any recognition of the wildlife impacts that will result from traffic associated with the Project, citing the copious studies documenting the devastating toll on wildlife from trucks and other vehicles. Id., p. 9. As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes ... expert opinion." Pub.Res.Code § 21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5). CEQA Guidelines demand that where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5); Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 935). Dr. Smallwood's comments present a fair argument that the project may have a potential significant impact on wildlife. As a result, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. We reserve the right to supplement these comments further during the upcoming public hearing on the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997). Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Michael R. Lozeau Lozeau Drury LLP Attachment— Comments of Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. D6 Pg72 ATTACHMENT D6 Pg73 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 31o8 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Dominick Perez, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 12 December 2016 RE: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Santa Anita Warehouse Dear Mr. Perez, I write to comment on the Initial Study (IS or City of Rancho Cucamonga 2016) prepared for the proposed Santa Anita Warehouse — Oakmont Industrial Group (Project file DRC2o15-00797), which I understand is to be an industrial building totaling 339,000 square feet on 17 acres in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. I assume this industrial building is to be a warehouse distribution center, but the IS did not clarify the purpose of the building or the project. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I earned a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from the University of California at Davis in 1990, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post -graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I have authored numerous papers on special -status species issues, including "Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation," published in Environmental Management (Smallwood et al. 1999), and "Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues" published in the Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society (Smallwood et al. 2001). I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society — Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I've been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was also Associate Editor of wildlife biology's premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-two years. Over these years, I studied the impacts of human activities and human infrastructure on wildlife, including on golden eagle, Swainson's hawk, burrowing owl, mountain lions, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, and other species. I have also performed wildlife surveys at many proposed project sites. I performed mountain lion track surveys throughout California since 1985. I also collaborate with colleagues worldwide on the underlying science and policy issues related to anthropogenic impacts on wildlife. My CV is attached. D6 Pg74 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT The impacts determinations in the IS were based on insufficient baseline data and poor and often misleading characterizations of the ecology and habitat requirements of potentially occurring special -status species. Visits to the site were cursory and failed to meet the minimum standards of survey protocols for any of the special -status species at issue. Whereas Michael Baker Associates (2016) identified the biologist who visited the project site, as well as the date and start time of 28 June 2016 at o8:oo hours, the duration of the visit was not reported. To the biologist's credit, however, he reported his visit on eBird (http://ebird.org/ebird/explore). He was on site for 2 hours and 58 minutes, thus devoting io minutes and 28 seconds per acre searching for any sign of San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, silvery legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and burrowing owl, while also recording all other species of wildlife observed. In other words, this one biologist was tasked with detecting 4 special -status species during a very cursory site visit one morning on one day. Special -status species warrant much greater survey effort than this. Most any species warrant much greater survey effort than this. Another biologist visited the site on 41h and 29th September 2015 (Salix Consulting Inc. 2016). The -visit was characterized as a "field assessment," but there was no description of the assessment methodology, time of day the assessments began or how long they lasted. Based on a reading of the report, I cannot determine whether the biologist walked over the site or merely looked it over from the window of a passing car. The wildlife on the site, and the people of California who value these wildlife, deserve more survey effort and better reporting than provided as foundation for the IS. The IS was based on an environmental assessment that was much too dismissive of the likelihoods of occurrence of many special -status species known to occur in the region (see Table 1). Michael Baker Associates (2o16) was focused on only five special -status species, but despite this focus no protocol -level surveys or reasonably sufficient surveys were performed for any of them. Nevertheless, two of the focal species were detected on site. These detections alone warrant the preparation of an EIR to appropriately assess project impacts and formulate mitigation measures with public participation. However, the site is likely used and needed by many other special -status species that were given only cursory consideration by Salix Consulting Inc. (2o16). Of the 59 species listed in Table 1, Salix Consulting Inc. (2016) made no mention of •46 (78%) of them. Salix Consulting Inc. (2o16) determined that another 6 of the species are absent from the site, but I can agree with only one of these absence determinations. Another 3 were determined as unlikely, but I could not agree with any of these 3 determinations. How can Salix Consulting Inc. (2o16) determine the absence of western yellow bat or western mastiff bat without having surveyed for them? Did they deploy acoustic detectors along with Sonobat to detect species of bats? Did they do any evening or nocturnal surveys to detect bats at all? The occurrence potential of special -status species should not be dismissed in the absence of survey effort unless the site is obviously devoid of habitat suitable for foraging, refuge or reproduction. D6 Pg75 Table 1. Occurrence likelihoods of 59 special -status wildlife species at the project site. Under occurrence likelihood, Salix refers to Salix Consulting Inc. (2o16) and KSS refers to my own assessment, and "skipped" means that no mention was made of the species. Common name, Species name Status Occurrence likelihood Salix KSS Coast horned lizard, PhrL nosoma coronatum blainvillii SSC Possible Possible Orange -throated whiptail, Aspidoscelis hyperythra SSC [2o16 watch list] Skipped Possible Coastal whi tail, Cnemido horus ti ris multiscutatus SSC Skipped Possible Silvery legless lizard, Anniella p. pulchra SSC Unlikely Possible San Diego Banded gecko, Coleoni x varie atus abbotti SSC Skipped Possible Two -striped garter snake Thamno his hammondi SSC Absent Unlikely Coastal rosy boa, Lichanura trivir ata FSC [1993] Skipped Possible Coastpatch-nosed snake, Salvadora hexale is vir ultea SSC Skipped Possible San Bernardino ringneck snake, Diadophis punctatus modestus CNDDB Skipped Possible San Diego rin neck snake, Diado his punctatus similis CNDDB Skipped Possible Turkey vulture, Cathartes aura CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Probable Swainson's hawk, Buteo swainsoni CT Skipped Probable Ferruginous hawk, Buteo re alis CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Possible Red-tailed hawk, Buteo 'amaicensis CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Certain Red -shouldered hawk, Buteo lineatus CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Probable Northern harrier, Circus ci aneus SSC3 Skipped Probable White-tailed kite, Elanus leucurus CFP Skipped Probable Sharp -shinned hawk, Acci iter striatus CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Probable Cooper's hawk, Acci iter coo eri CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Probable American kestrel, Falco s arverius CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Certain Merlin, Falco columbarius CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Possible Prairie falcon, Falco mexicanus CDFW 35o3.5 Skipped Possible Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus CE, CFP Skipped Probable Barn owl, T to alba CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Probable Great -horned owl, Bubo vir inianus CDFW 3503.5 Skipped Probable Burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia FCC, SSC2 Unlikely Probable Black swift, Cypseloides ni er borealis FSC, SSC Skipped Possible Horned lark, Eremo hila al estris actia TWL Probable Coastal California gnatcatcher, Polio tila c. tali ornica FT, SSC -Skipped Unlikely Possible Southwestern willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii Extimus FE, CE Skipped Stop -over Olive -sided flycatcher, Conto us coo eri SSC2 Skipped Stop -over Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus FSC, SSC2 Skipped Probable Least Bell's vireo, Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE Ski PR9d Sto -over Yellow warbler, Seto ha a petechia SSC2 Skipped 1 Stop -over Yellow -breasted chat, Icteria virens SSC3 -Skipped Stop -over D6 Pg76 Common name, Species name Status Occurrence likelihood Salix KSS Bell's sage sparrow, Am his iza b. belli TWL Skipped Possible Oregon vesper sparrow, Pooecetes gramineus a nis SSC2 Skipped Possible Grasshopper sparrow, Ammodramus sauannarum SSC2 Skipped Possible Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Aimophila ru 'ce s canescens FSC, SSC Skipped Possible Tricolored blackbird, A elaius tricolor SSCi Absent Possible California leaf -nosed bat, Macrotus calf ornicus SSC Skipped Possible Pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus SSC Skipped Possible Townsend's western big -eared bat, Plecotus t. townsendii SSC Skipped Possible Western red bat, Lasiurus blosseuillii SSC Skipped Possible Western yellow bat, Lasiurus xanthinus SSC Absent Possible Small -footed m otis, M otis cililabrum WBWG Skipped Possible Long-eared m otis, M otis evotis WBWG Skipped Possible Fringed m otis, Mt offs th sanodes WBWG Skipped Possible Long-legged m otis, Mt offs Volans WBWG Skipped Possible Yuma m otis, M otis yumanensis WBWG Skipped Possible Western mastiff bat, Eumo s perotis SSC Absent Possible Pocketed free -tailed bat, N ctinonio s emorosaccus SSC Skipped I Possible Southern grasshopper mouse, Onychomys torridus ramona SSC Skipped Possible Pacific pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris aci cus Skipped Possible Los Angeles pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris breuinasus SSC Present Certain San Diego pocket mouse, Chaetodi us . llax SSC Absent Possible San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Dipodomys merriami aruus SSC Absent Possible San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma le ida intermedia SSC Absent Possible San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Present Certain I Listed as FE = federal endangered, FCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CE = California endangered, CT = California threatened, SSC = California species of special concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFG Code 4700), CDFW 3503.5 = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSCt, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities r, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2oo8), and TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2oo8), WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as moderate or high priority. D6 Pg77 Los Angeles pocket mouse — The City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) misleadingly states that Los Angeles pocket mouse captures were associated with the on -site drainage feature. According to Lawrey (2016), Los Angeles pocket mouse was "evenly spread throughout the trapping grid." This trapping grid did not overlap the on -site drainage feature (see Figure 3 of Lawrey 2oi6). According to City of Rancho Cucamonga (2oi6), "The project site has no direct connectivity to any natural habitats or open spaces, and it is unlikely to be used for any notable wildlife movements." But this statement is not entirely true, as just across the canal to the west is the right-of-way to a transmission line. This linear habitat feature connects wildlife on the project site to other habitat areas. San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit — Other than piggy -backing on the compensatory mitigation for Los Angeles pocket mouse (see below, under MITIGATION), no mitigation is proposed for San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) gives an absurd reason for its decision to not mitigate for the loss of San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and its habitat. The reason given is `jackrabbits readily scatter when disturbed." Whether an animal scatters when disturbed is no basis for assessing potential project impacts. If such a basis existed, then there would be no further need for CEQA or for any wildlife protection laws when it comes to assessing project impacts on wildlife, as we could conclude that California condors will also scatter when disturbed, as will Coastal California gnatcatcher, longhorn fairy shrimp, Quino checkerspot butterfly, and even desert tortoise — perhaps more slowly than other vertebrates, but tortoises will scatter nonetheless. Reasoning that jackrabbits readily scatter seems more like a cynical joke than a serious CEQA assessment. Whether scattering or not, San Diego black -tailed jackrabbits will have only one direction to move out of harm's way during construction, and that is west into the transmission line right-of-way — an area already occupied by San Diego black -tailed jackrabbits if the habitat is suitable. Whether these jackrabbits scatter or march in lock - hop, the project would destroy 17 acres of habitat while pushing survivors into a narrow corridor possibly already occupied by the same species at its numerical capacity. The post -construction number of San Diego black -tailed jackrabbits occupying the transmission line right-of-way would quickly return to the pre -construction number, but this return to the original number will not happen without considerable stress among both displaced and in -place jackrabbits. The San Diego black -tailed jackrabbits that are displaced or killed by the project will not benefit from the proposed mitigation for impacts on Los Angeles pocket mouse, amounting to 6.4 acres of habitat protection at a site yet to be selected. Unless the local San Diego black -tailed jackrabbits are trapped and released at this mitigation site, they will be unable to reach it. A serious mitigation plan is needed for San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit. San Bernardino kangaroo rat — No mitigation is proposed for loss of San Bernardino kangaroo rat or its habitat because the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) concludes that the species is absent. Several reasons for this conclusion are provided, but none are satisfactory. It is claimed that the species needs connectivity to natural hydrological processes, which no longer exist on the project site. It is also claimed that unauthorized off -road vehicle activity has degraded the habitat on the site. However, in my experience with an endangered species of kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides), the disturbances caused by off -road vehicle activity replaced enough of the disturbance regime formerly provided by natural hydrological processes to maintain the species at two sites. In fact, our management actions to conserve and recover the species were designed and implemented to simulate the disturbance impacts of off -road vehicle activity, so long as the spatial extent of disturbances was kept in check (Smallwood and Morrison 20o6, 2013). Therefore, the site's off -road vehicle activity might very well make up for the lost hydrological processes needed to maintain cleared space usable by San Bernardino kangaroo rat. I would not dismiss this species for the reasons given. Another reason provided in support of a determination of absence was lack of trap success when traps were set for Los Angeles pocket mouse. According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2oi6), if the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is present, then the trapping for Los Angeles pocket mouse would have detected San Bernardino kangaroo rat. This conclusion is flawed, however. First of all, Lawrey (2016) used 12-inch Sherman live traps, which are small for kangaroo rats. I use 15-inch Sherman live traps, which are better sized for kangaroo rats. I understand that Lawrey caught 14 Dulzura kangaroo rats (Dipodomys simulans), but this capture success does not mean that San Bernardino kangaroo rat would have been caught in 12-inch traps. Additionally, Lawrey (2016) did not report the number of trap nights of the trapping effort (a standard reporting metric), so there is no way of assessing the likelihood of capture. What is reported is the setting of 8o traps on 6 July 2016, which captured 81 small mammals. A serious consumer of Lawrey's (2o16) report needs to know how many nights these traps were opened in order to subtract these 81 captures and all closed -but -empty trap outcomes from the product of the number of traps and the number of nights of trapping to arrive at total trap nights. For example, if the 8o traps were opened only two nights, then the 81 captures (assuming 1 capture per trap) would leave 79 trap nights available for catching San Bernardino kangaroo rat (2 nights x 8o traps for 16o trap nights — 81 captures = 79 trap nights). If, hypothetically, 15 traps per night were found to be closed but empty, then we divide these 30 traps nights by 2 (the standard approach) to arrive at 15 lost trap nights, or a total of 64 trap nights available for catching San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Lawrey (2o16) needs to report all the information that is needed to assess capture likelihood, including the number of nights when traps were set and the number of traps found closed and empty the following morning. Trapping endangered species of kangaroo rats is not easy. I have many times set traps and failed to capture San Joaquin kangaroo rat. On the rare occasion when I did succeed at capturing this endangered kangaroo rat, nearly all of my traps were filled nearly every night I ran them. Just the right conditions are needed, including temperature and moon stage, so one should be cautious about relying on a single trapping session for determining absence of San Bernardino kangaroo rat. A sufficient number of traps should be opened over 5 consecutive nights in one session, followed by two or three additional sessions spread through the year to experience various temperature and moon conditions. D6 Pg79 An EIR should be prepared to appropriately assess impacts to San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Silvery legless lizard and coast horned lizard — According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016), "The site has marginal or moderate habitat to support silvery legless lizard, coast horned lizard." No foundation is provided for this conclusion. What is marginal or moderate about the habitat for these species on this site? And if we are to believe that the habitat is of moderate suitability, then why conclude these species are absent? If the habitat is moderately suitable, then both species might very well occur on site. Certainly, no surveys were performed to determine the absence of either of these species. I cannot recall surveying for silvery legless lizard in my own career, but I have surveyed for coast horned lizard and other rare herpetological species. I have used a rake on appropriate soils, as well as a hooked stick to turn over debris. This is how one finds these types of species, and not by simply declaring absence. An EIR should be prepared to appropriately assess impacts to these species. Burrowing owl — The City of Rancho Cucamonga (2oi6) concludes the site includes marginal to moderate habitat for burrowing owl, and then in the next sentence settles on marginal habitat. From this habitat downgrade from moderate to marginal, the City then concludes burrowing owls are absent thereby negating the need for surveys. This progression of logic is contrary to the precautionary principle in risk assessment (National Research Council 1986, O'Brien 2000) and contrary to the CDFW (2012) guidance on burrowing owl mitigation. The CDFW (2012) survey protocol was not followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016), as detailed below. Biologist qualifications.—CDFW (2012) lists minimum qualifications of biologists engaged to perform surveys and impact assessments. These qualifications include (1) Familiarity with the species and local ecology; (2) Experience conducting habitat assessments and breeding and non -breeding season surveys; (3) Familiarity with regulatory statutes, scientific research and conservation related to burrowing owls; (4) Experience with analyzing impacts on burrowing owls. There is no evidence of expertise on burrowing owls or experience performing burrowing owl surveys by any of the biologists who visited the project cite in support of City of Rancho Cucamonga (2oi6), and there is no indication that anyone involved was familiar with burrowing owl research or conservation. After all, the only source referenced on burrowing owl ecology or conservation was to a 312 word blurb on an internet web site (Poulin et al. 2011). Habitat assessment. —Neither Michael Baker International (2016) nor Salix Consulting Inc. (2016) reported findings of a suitable habitat assessment. On burrowing owl ecology, Michael Baker International (2oi6) cited Poulin et al. (2011), consisting of a 312 word blurb on a web site. Poulin et al.'s (2011) only summary of burrowing owl ecology in its 312 words was the following, "this species is active day and night, nests in underground burrows, and typically nests in small groups." Nevertheless, Michael Balser International (2oi6) attributes the following statements to Poulin et al. (2011): (1) "Agricultural fields, golf courses, cemeteries, airports, and vacant lots are also all utilized readily as breeding habitat;" (2) "Western burrowing owls (A.c. hypugaea) sum only very rarely dig their own burrows and generally must rely on natural or artificial burrows;" (3) "Nests are typically constructed in an area that contains a high density of burrows and are typically placed in areas surrounded by bare ground or low -growing vegetation." These attributions to Poulin et al. (2o11) are false. Most of the rest of the habitat summary in Michael Baker International (2o16), including (3) above, are inaccurate. These false attributions and inaccurate habitat descriptions are inconsistent with the standards listed in CDFW (2012), and they strongly indicate that Michael Baker International was unqualified to assess burrowing owl habitat at the time it was tasked with doing so for this project. Breeding season surveys. —According to the CDFW (2012) survey protocol, 4 surveys are needed, and these surveys are supposed to be separated by at least 3 weeks, with 1 survey preceding April 15 and one following June 15. The surveys are supposed to be performed between dawn and io:oo hours or within the 2 hours preceding evening civil twilight. Instead, one biologist visited the site once on 28 June 2o16, and another visited the site in September, after the breeding season. This level of effort fails to meet breeding -season survey standards in CDFW (2012). Reporting.—CDFW (2012) lists reporting standards numerically for burrowing owl surveys. Michael Baker International (2016) and City of Rancho Cucamonga (2o16) fail to report (i) survey dates appropriately separated by at least 3 weeks, along with start and end times and weather conditions, (2) qualifications of surveyor(s), (3) discussion of how the timing of surveys affected comprehensiveness and detection probability (see Crowe and Longshore 2010), (4) description of survey methods including point count dispersal and duration (transect spacing was the only description provided), (5) a description and justification of the area surveyed, (6) numbers of nestlings or juveniles associated with each pair and whether adults were banded or marked, (7) descriptions of behaviors of burrowing owls observed, (8) a list of possible burrowing owl predators in the area, including any signs of predation of burrowing owls, (io) signed field forms, photos, etc., (12) copies of CNDDB field forms that were sent to CDFW in compliance with the surveyor(s) scientific collecting permits (the SCP compliance clause was added by me but does not appear in the protocol). Some of the preceding non -reporting resulted from the lack of burrowing owl detections, but these lack of detections likely resulted from inadequate survey effort and failing to follow CDFW's (2012) breeding season survey protocol. To summarize, protocol -level surveys were not performed for burrowing owls on the site — not even close. Without having followed the survey protocol, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) lacks foundation for concluding absence. Both Salix Consulting Inc. (2oi6) and Michael Baker International (2016:9) claim the habitat on site is of low quality, but I cannot agree with this. Based on the site photos appearing in the reports, the habitat looks typical of where I often find burrowing owls. Michael Baker International (2016:9) pigeon -holes burrowing owls as a grassland specialist, but burrowing owls occur in a variety of vegetation covers including bare or sparsely vegetated patches of ground, as reported by Michael Baker International (2oi6:9) in the sentence immediately following the claim that the species is a grassland specialist. Burrowing owls are not as restricted to areas of high mammal burrow density as claimed by Michael Baker International (2016:10), nor are they necessarily year-round residents of burrows in southern California (no reference was provided for this claim). Burrowing owls do not always use burrows out in the open, as claimed by Michael Baker International (2016:20). Qualified biologists are needed to assess burrowing owl habitat on the project site. Michael Baker International (2oi6:20) claims to have thoroughly examined all mammal burrows for sign of burrowing owls, but this was not done according to the protocol, which matters to the determinations made about habitat being of low quality and burrowing owls unlikely occurring on site. I have many times found burrowing owls nesting in burrows where I had previously found no sign of burrowing owl use. This is the reason the protocol recommends multiple surveys separated by several weeks each. One cannot rely on a single visit to determine owl presence based on sign. The protocol needs to be heeded. Traffic Impacts on Wildlife According to City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016), the project will generate about 712 vehicle trips daily. However, if this project is to be a distribution warehouse (I am assuming it is, given the recent trend in proliferating distribution warehousing and the lack of a project description in the IS), then this daily trip estimate appears low for a 339,000 square feet of warehousing. For example, at a similar -sized warehouse project nearby (I-210 Logistics Center IV project composed of 431,265 square feet of warehouse on 18.3 acres), Kimley-Horn and Associates (2oi6) predict 2,573 daily passenger car equivalent trips. Adjusted for the size of the warehouse (339,000/431,265 = 0.786), this traffic volume would translate to 2,022 average daily trips, or 2.8 times greater traffic volume than predicted by City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016). Regardless of whether the traffic volume would be 712 or 2,022 average daily trips, the increase in traffic volume would be considerable. It is therefore surprising that no analysis of traffic impacts on wildlife is provided. Auto and truck traffic poses one of the most lethal and devastating effects to wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). The impact caused by the project's added traffic should be assessed and mitigated. Cumulative Effects Analysis The City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) explained that a statement of overriding considerations in an earlier 2010 Program FEIR prepared for the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, and citing the benefits of development under the General Plan, negates the need for assessing cumulative impacts. In fact, no cumulative effects analysis is reported. However, cumulative impacts are highly likely to be significant and considerable, given the extensive habitat destruction that has already taken place in the region, and the loss of this site as one of the last patches of stop -over habitat for migrating birds, one of the last patches of habitat for multiple special -status species, and one of the last stop -over habitat patches for terrestrial wildlife moving along the transmission line right-of-way corridor during migration and dispersal. An EIR should be prepared, and it should address cumulative impacts regardless of the earlier statement of over-riding considerations. MITIGATION Removal and relocation of captured Los Angeles pocket mouse — This measure needs much greater detail and specificity. As written, setting traps for an hour and catching no Los Angeles pocket mice would suffice. Minimum standards are needed on trapper qualifications, trap -nights, representation of seasons and the year, and spatial coverage of the project site. Minimum standards are also needed on duration of holding captive animals prior to release, the conditions of holding, time of day (night) of release, and conditions of release site, including the numerical and demographic status of the receiving Los Angeles pocket mouse population. Dumping captured pocket mice into an area already occupied by Los Angeles pocket mouse would likely cause significant impacts on the receiving population, which will have already reached its numerical capacity and established social bonds. This sort of dumping could be viewed by some biologists as inhumane, reckless, or even a form of take under the California Endangered Species Act. It could be viewed as an expansion of the project's impacts into areas occupied by Los Angeles pocket mouse. When I was asked to facilitate a similar dumping of burrowing owls from a project area into habitat patches elsewhere, I relinquished my consultancy rather than engage in what I considered to be unethical treatment of wildlife. In my opinion, the only ethical grounds for trapping and relocation of Los Angeles pocket mice would be into areas undergoing habitat restoration, where the species likely has not established yet. Compensate 3.2 acres of Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat at 2:1 ratio — The basis for this measure is incorrect. Lawrey (2016) found Los Angeles pocket mice spread across the trapping grid, but the trapping grid did not necessarily represent the entirety of the species occupation of the site. Lawrey did not trap the remainder of the project site, so the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) cannot conclude that Los Angeles pocket mouse is limited in its distribution to the 3.2 acre trapping grid. Given that the species was spread across the entire trapping grid, it is reasonable to conclude that it occupies the entire project site. The appropriate basis for habitat compensation is 17 acres. Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls — Whereas preconstruction surveys should be performed for burrowing owl, the CDFW (2012) protocol calls for more substantial surveys prior to the preconstruction surveys, and these have not yet been completed. Protocol -level surveys are needed first to establish the numerical basis for impact assessment and formulation of compensatory mitigation. 10 Thank you for your consideration, 'A. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. CITED CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2016. Initial Study Part II. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2016. Traffic Impact Study for the proposed I-210 Logistics Center IV Project in the City of Rialto. Appendix I to Draft I-2io Logistics Center IV Addendum to the Renaissance Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Sch No. 2006071021. City of Rialto, California. Lawrey, S. 2oi6. Presence/Absence Focused Survey Report: Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris [LAPM]), Oakmont Industrial Project. Letter to RBF Consulting, Ontario, California. Michael Baker International. 2016. Oakmont Industrial Project, City Of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California: Special -Status Species Habitat Suitability Assessment. Report to McWhit Properties, Inc., Newport Coast, California. National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problem - solving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. O'Brien, M. 2000. Malting better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk management. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Salix Consulting, Inc. 2oi6. Biological Resources Assessment for the t17-Acre Santa Anita Avenue Study Area Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Report to CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC, Auburn, California. Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. 11 00 0 Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2oo6. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 16o pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison.1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435• Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49• 12 Perez, Dominick From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Thank you Mr. Perez I appreciate the confirmation. Jeremiah George <jerngeorge@yahoo.com> Wednesday, December 14, 2016 7.48 PM Perez, Dominick Re: OPPOSAL TO APPROVAL OF DRC2015-00797 Dec, 14, 2016 Follow up Flagged Sincerely, Jeremiah N. George *Sent from a mobile device - please excuse brevity and typos. On Dec 14, 2016, at 16:30, Perez, Dominick <Dominick.PerezOcityofrc.us> wrote: Jeremiah, I am confirming that we have received your comments and request to bring this to the attention of the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting. Dominick From: Jeremiah George [mailto:ierngeorze0vahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:52 AM To: Burnett, Candyce <Candvice.Burnett@citvofrc.us>; Planning, City <Citv.Plannins@citvofrc.us> Subject: OPPOSAL TO APPROVAL OF DRC2015-00797 Dec, 14, 2016 PLEASE PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION and PLANING DEPARTMENT prior to 06:00 -PM December 14, 2016, COMMENTS REGARDING: DRC2015-00797 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEIGN REVIEW. THE COMMENTS BELOW WERE SUBMITTED WITHIN THE LEGAL WINDOW TO GO ON RECORD REGARDING OUR OPPOSAL of approval of DR0015-00797. Dear, Members of the Planning commission This projects was just brought to my attention yesterday evening so please accept my apologies in advance for the brevity of my comments. The current environmental documentation for DRC2015-00797 is wholly inadequate the site is significant and has the potential or has known historical observations of a number of special status resources. The following issues have not been adequately addressed. 1. The site is potential habitat for the Delhi sands Flower Loving fly a federally listed Endangered species. southern California Edison has conducted some protocol surveys abutting this site which have produced negative results. However this site has not been surveyed for the required two years Us USFWS. The area maps outside of Delhi Sands (per USGS) however this area has documented Delhi blow sands present (per obs, per usFws) EXHIBIT Q D6Pg86 2. The site likely supports Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (a CDFwS special status species). Surveys need to be conducted. 3. The site likely supports San Bernardino kangaroo rat a federally endangered species. Recent surveys from the area have documented likely persistence of this species from the area. 4. The historic channel of Day creek or Cucamonga creek crosses this site from the northeast to the southeast and still supports alluvial fan and riparian plant communities including Lepidospartum squamatum, Eriogonum fasiculatum, Salix exigua and and associated rich native plant community. Lepidospartum squamatum 5. The area has seen a lot of recent disturbance from "weed abatement" activities and unauthorized ORv use. However it supports the last large piece of Aeolian dune and alluvial scrub in the area. 6. A number of potential status plant species likely or possible occur onsite for example Phacelia stelaris. 7. The site also likely supports California legless lizard and is appropriate habitat for the southcoast horned lizard. Myself and the South Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society oppose approval of this project until the above issues are addressed. Sincerely Jeremiah N. Georgge PhD -Consultingg Biologist & Conservation Chair South Coast CLAPS. ierngeorge@vahoo.com, 310-469-8989. D6 Pg87 api � • =lx -tea consulting, inc. MEMORANDUM To: John Atwell From: Jeff Glazner Date: June 7, 2016 Subject: Response to Comments from CDFW on CEQA document for Santa Anita Avenue Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA This Memo has been prepared to respond to comments received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on the Santa Anita Avenue Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The CDFW comments are dated May 20, 2016. The structure of this Memorandum follows the order of the comments in the CDFW letter. It should be noted that although Salix evaluated the entire 37-acre parcel, this project will impact only a 16-acre portion. Page 2. Biological Resource Analysis The comment states concern "about the lack of biological analysis included in the IS" and makes recommendations for further protocol surveys for both plants and animals. Response: A special -status plant survey was conducted in April 2016, and no rare plants were observed. The report is available for review. 1. Surveys for the named animals were not conducted ... CDFW wants a more complete baseline analysis. Response: Animal surveys were not done. Conducting them should take care of this. Here are the species noted by the CDFW and a brief note on surveys: State Species of Special Concern Los Angeles pocket mouse San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit Silvery legless lizard Conduct one day field survey Conduct one day field survey Conduct one day field survey Coast horned lizard Conduct one day field survey rvww'Ahm, mm 112dnP,erdal Drive•%,u, t 1. AAW". rA 95E03 nih—Ra(RAP®I30 e. 59018?F :C EXHIBIT R D6Pg88 Burrowing owl Conduct nesting and resident owl survey Federally Listed Species California gnatcatclier Federal: Threatened/State: SSC. Habitat quality is very poor. Corps did not address during 404 permit process. Suggest conducting pre -construction bird survey but not protocol survey. San Bernardino kangaroo rat Federal: Threatened/State: SSC. Habitat quality is very poor and species not known from this area. Corps did not address during 404 permit process. Suggest evaluating during preconstruction surveys for other ground dwelling species listed above to determine if evidence of occupancy is present. If so, consult USFWS re further evaluation. 2. CDFW does not support translocation/transplantation for mitigating unavoidable impacts. Implies that permanent preservation/management of habitat more effective. Response: Because of the property to be developed is poor quality habitat and infill lands, permanent preservation is not warranted. Should a special status species be located, translocation of the animal is the prudent method. Page 3. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) 1-3. CDFW claims that the site does support suitable habitat for SBKR Response: There is only remote potential for this species and protocol surveys are not warranted. This species has not been detected in the region for decades, and it was not made an issue during the 404 NEPA permit process. See attached exhibit for CNDDB occurrences of SBKR. Page 4. Nesting Birds/Mi rg atory Bird Treaty Act CDFW recommends doing bird surveys regardless of time of year, no more than three days prior to clearing/ground disturbance. Response: Advise changing MM to do preconstruction bird survey regardless of time of year Page 5. Alluvial Scrub Habitat CDFW argues that the community is "Scale broom scrub" due to the presence of > 1 % cover of Lepidospartum squamatum and recommends purchase of mitigation for impacts. Response: Lepidosparttmt squamatum (a medium to large sized shrub in the sunflower family) does occur on the property, but there are very few individuals. I did not calculate their total cover at the time of the surveys but am certain that 2 it is substantially less than 1 % of the area. It is incorrect to call this habitat "Scale broom scrub." The purchase of offsite mitigation is not warranted. To be certain, I will quantify the area of Lepidospartuni squamatum during my site visit with CDFW on June 1491. Page 5. Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) CDFW explains LSA Response: 1602 Application was submitted on April 18, 2016. No formal response has been received yet. Based on this letter, we expect CDFW to have issues with it. Wait for their response and respond accordingly. CDFW takes exception with the verified WD map. Response: The Corps of Engineers has verified the wetland delineation map and issued a 404 permit based on what they consider to be waters of the U.S. CDFW's jurisdiction is "top of bank" or "riparian edge." These can be subjective. We will address tltis issue in the field meeting on June 14th. D6 Pg91 Dominick Perez, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Responses to Comments by Lozeau Drury on the Santa Anita Warehouse Project Dear Mr. Perez: I have reviewed the comments provided by Lozeau Drury by way of letters dates December 8th and 131h 2016 and offer the following responses: Comment 1: The commentator was concerned that impacts to San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit were not being mitigated. Response: It should be pointed out that impacts to San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit is not protected under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts. It is a species of concern and requires mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CECtA"). However, the applicant is mitigating for impacts to state waters as well as for the loss of Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) habitat as part of the 1602 permit process. San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit inhabits the same habitat as LAPM on the project site, including the waters of the State. Mitigation for the loss of waters of the State and LAPM habitat will also compensate for loss of Black -tailed Jackrabbit habitat. There is no need to provide separate but overlapping mitigation for Black -tailed Jackrabbit. Comment 2: Similarly, the author is concerned that the proposed relocation of LAPM, also a species of concern, from the project will result in impacts to a protected species that will require review and approval outside of the CEQA process. Response: As noted above, impacts to a species of concern is not a violation of the federal or state Endangered Species Acts. Impacts are mitigated under CECA. Relocation of LAPM to another site is a common and acceptable practice and has been requested by California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") for this project. The relocation will be folded into the 1602 permit by CDFW. The applicant is in negotiation with CDFW on the details of the relocation and other mitigation that may be required but can't complete the process with CDFW until after CEQA is complete. The applicant has prepared a draft LAPM Relocation Plan that has been submitted to CDFW for review and approval. The draft LAPM Relocation Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." As noted above, CDFW will incorporate this mitigation as a condition to the 1602 permit. EXHIBIT S D6Pg92 Comment 3: The author notes that CDFW was concerned about the adequacy of the Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) submitted for this project. Response: At CDFW's request, the biologists for the applicant met with CDFW onsite and discussed the revisions needed to the JD. A revised 1D was submitted and has been used to prepare a 1602 permit application that is currently being reviewed by CDFW. But, as mentioned above, the permit can't be issued until after CEQA is complete. If you have any questions, please call me at 909-974-4907. Sincerely, Thomas J. McGill, D. Director of Natural Resources D6 Pg93 We Make o Difference I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L March 27, 2017 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attn: Mr. Dominick Perez 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 SUBJECT: Responses to Comments by Jeremiah N. George, Ph.D. — Consulting Biologist & Conservation Chair South Coast CNPS Dear Mr. Perez: I have reviewed the comments provided by Jeremiah N. George, Ph.D. and offer the following responses: Comment 1: The site is potential habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving fly a federally listed endangered species. Southern California Edison has conducted some protocol surveys abutting this site which have produced negative results. However this site has not been surveyed for the required two years per USFWS. The area maps outside of Delhi Sands (per USGS) however this area has documented Delhi blow sands present (per obs, per USFWS). The commenter is correct in stating that USGS did not identify this area as supporting Delhi Sands. The project is outside USFW designated Delhi Sand Soils. The commenter is further correct in stating that portions, particularly the western side, of the site visually appears to support Delhi Sand Soils. A closer inspection however, demonstrates that only a thin layer of Delhi Sands, an Aeolian distributed soil, has been deposited inside the western boundary. This layer of Delhi Sands, while giving the site the appearance of supporting clean Delhi Sands soils, does not occur with sufficient depth to support the species. The deeper soils are Tujunga loamy sand, which does not provide suitable habitat for Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly (DSF). DSF spend the majority of its life underground living within the deeper clean Delhi Sands. Without Delhi Sands soils at depth, DSF would not occur. There have been several focused surveys for DSF for the project site, 2003 through 2006 and 2013 through 2015. All surveys have been negative with no indication that DSF has ever been present on -site. Given the lack of deeper Delhi Sand Soils, and further give the lack of any positive sightings of DSF onsite, despite seven focused surveys, clearly indicates that DSF is absent from the project site and that the species would not be expected to occur. And there is no requirement that additional surveys be completed after years of non -presence. (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.41h 1383, 1396-97 [protocol level surveys are not required where other evidence indicates absence of endangered species].) MBAKERINTL.COM 3536 Concours, Suite 100 1 Ontario, CA 91764 Office: 90"74-4900 ]Fax: 909-974-4004 70 i '4'� We Make a Difference Comment 2: The site likely supports Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (a CDFWS special status species). Surveys need to be conducted. Response: Two small mammal trapping study were conducted in 2016 and 2017 onsite to determine if either L.APM or SBKR were present. LAPM was identified onsite during both surveys, while SBKR was determined to be absent. Although kangaroo rat sign was present on the project, all kangaroo were identified as Dulzura Kangaroo Rat (DKR), a non -listed species. The applicant is currently negotiating mitigation for LAPM with CDFW as part of their 1602 permit. Relocation of LAPM to another site is a common and acceptable practice and has been requested by CDFW for this project. The relocation will be folded into the 1602 permit by CDFW. The applicant is in negotiation with CDFW on the details of the relocation and other mitigation that may be required but can't complete the process with CDFW until after CEQA is complete. The applicant has prepared a draft LAPM Relocation Plan that has been submitted to CDFW for review and approval. As noted above, CDFW will incorporate this mitigation as a condition to the 1602 permit. (See Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Environment v. County of Kern (2014) 228 Cal.App.411 360, 383 [compliance with a regulatory requirement is acceptable mitigation].) Comment 3: The site likely supports San Bernardino kangaroo rat a federally endangered species. Recent surveys from the area have documented likely persistence of this species from the area. Response: See response to comment 2, above. A 2017 small mammal trapping by an USFWS- certified SBKR trapper was negative, determining that SBKR is absent from the project site. Comment 4: The historic channel of Day creek or Cucamonga creek crosses this site from the northeast to the southeast and still supports alluvial fan and riparian plant communities including Lepidosportum squamatum, Eriogonum fosiculatum, Solix exiguo and associated rich native plant community. Response: The USACE has already issued a permit for impacts to waters of the U.S. (0.39-acre) The CDFW claims 1.47-acres of waters of the State and 3.0-acres of alluvial scrub habitat. For the 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement application for impacts to waters of the State, CDFW is requiring mitigation of the alluvial scrub habitat at a 3:1 ratio (9.0-acres). The 1602 will be issued upon CEQA certification. Comment 5: The area has seen a lot of recent disturbance from "weed abatement" activities and unauthorized ORV use. However it supports the last large piece of Aeolian dune and alluvial scrub in the area. Response: The presence of a thin layers of Delhi Sands indicates that he Aeolian sand deposits occur on the surface but are not present at depth. Aeolian sands are present in the general vicinity as mapped by USGS. However, USGS mapping does not show that the project site is supporting Aeolian deposited Delhi Sands Soils. Development of the site will not result in the loss of Aeolian D6 Pg95 We Make a Difference dune habitat. Development of the site will result in the loss of alluvial scrub habitat but the loss of alluvial scrub habitat is being addressed by the applicant as part of the mitigation required by CDFW under their 1602 Streambed Alteration Application process. Comment 6: A number of potential status plant species likely or possible occur onsite for example Phacelia stelloris. Response: A floristic survey for rare plants, including Phacelia stellaris,was conducted in April 2016. No special status plant species were detected. The severe degradation and compromised natural habitat of the site, and excessive amount of invasive plant species are major contributors to the low probability for the presence of special status plant species. Comment 7: The site also likely supports California legless lizard and is appropriate habitat for the south coast homed lizard. Response: A detailed habitat suitability assessment was conducted on the site for both species. The suitability assessment determined that 24% of the onsite habitats were unsuitable for the California legless lizard and 58% of the habitat was very low quality, leaving only 3.1 acres or 18% of the onsite habitat as moderate quality habitat. Most of the moderate quality habitat is found in association with the streambed habitats, primarily alluvial scrub plant community found in association with an ephemeral drainage that runs north to south in the eastern portion of the site. Despite a detailed search of the alluvial scrub habitat, no California legless lizard were observed onsite and the species is presumed absent. It is important to note that the loss of the 3.0 acres of alluvial scrub habitat will be mitigated at 3:1 with the set aside of 9.0 acres of offsite conservation. The habitat suitability assessment conducted for south coast horned lizard found that the western half, 8.9 acres or approximately 53% were considered moderate quality habitat for the species. The remaining 8.0 acres or approximately 47% were considered to be low quality habitat for horned lizard. Despite a detailed search of the non-native grassland found on the western portion of the site, no south coast horned lizard were observed onsite and the species is presumed absent. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 974-4907 or tmcgill@mbakerintl.com should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ��Thomas J. McGill, )h.D. Vice President Natural Resources Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L April 14, 2017 Dominick Perez, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Responses to Comments to Shawn Smallwood Letter of December 12, 2016 Dear Mr. Dominick Perez Comment: My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I earned a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from the University of California at Davis in 1990. 1 have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-two years. Response: Michael Baker international (MBI) lead biologist for this project earned his Ph.D. in Biology from the University of Santa Barbara in 1978. He has been performing wildlife surveys in California, primarily in San Bernardino County, for thirty-eight years. Comment: Visits to the site were cursory and failed to meet the minimum standards of survey protocols for any of the special -status species at issue. Michael Baker Associates (2016) was focused on only five special -status species but, despite this focus, no protocol -level surveys or reasonably sufficient surveys were performed for any of them. Response: A habitat assessment is not a focused survey. Instead, it is a generalized assessment of a site to document existing biological conditions (soils, plant communities, jurisdictional waters) and to determine the potential for sensitive plant and wildlife species to occur. Often a habitat assessment will identify the need to conduct additional surveys and studies, including focused surveys for special status species. For this project site, several additional studies, including focused surveys for Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly and Sensitive Plants, were conducted. Comment: Dr. Smallwood reviewed Table 1 and concluded that 58 of the 59 species that have been recorded in the general region have the potential to occur on the project site. Response: This conclusion is highly unlikely that virtually every sensitive species occurring throughout the various habitats in the region would all be likely to occur on this isolated project site. It appears Drd. Smallwood analysis is based on a literature review alone and does not include a visit to the project site. The site is very heavily disturbed by frequent use by off -road recreational vehicles. Several dirt tracks have been created across the property by this activity. Salix's analysis is much more in line with the existing conditions on the project site. MBI's numerous surveys (MBI has conducted over a dozen site visits/surveys over the last two years) confines Salix's analysis and conclusions in Table 1. .n. vrmun rnne 3535 Contours Street Suite 1001 Ontario, Callfomia 91764 Office:90997449001Fa 909974.4004 D6 Pg97 April14,2017 Page 2 Comment: The City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) misleadingly states that Los Angeles pocket mouse captures were associated with the on -site drainage feature. According to Lawrey (2016), Los Angeles pocket mouse was '.evenly spread throughout the trapping grid." This trapping grid did not overlap the on -site drainage feature (see Figure 3 of Lawrey 2016). Response: The statement made by Lawrey was that LAPM was evenly spread throughout the trapping grid which was confined to the southeast quadrant of the site. This quadrant is border by the drainage feature on its northern and western boundary. LAPM is usually found in soft sandy soils deposited along the banks of a drainage feature. A subsequent trapping for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat in March 2017 confirmed that LAPM is indeed found in the southeast quadrant of the site but is not present in the remainder of the site. CDFW will incorporate the implementation of the approved LAPM translocation plan as a condition to their1602 permit. Comment: "The project site has no direct connectivity to any natural habitats or open spaces, and it is unlikely to be used for any notable wildlife movements." But this statement is not entirely true, as just across the canal to the west is the ROW to a transmission line. Response: The presence of the transmission line could provide movement opportunities for wildlife west of the project site. But, the presence of the canal and the 1-15 Freeway to the west of the site creates a significant barrier to wildlife movement and would preclude animals crossing the site east to west. Comment: The City of Rancho Cucamonga offer no mitigation of the loss of habitat forjackrabbits. The reason given is jackrabbits readily scatter when disturbed:' Reasoning that jackrabbits readily scatter seems more like a cynical joke than a serious CEQA assessment. Response: Jackrabbit do readily scatter when approached and abandon an area. They do not have a territory like most mammal species. The availability of habitat in the surrounding area, although highly fragmented, would provide habitat for this species. It is more likely that the jackrabbit observed onsite were foraging. It should be pointed out that impact San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit is not protected under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts. It is a species of concern and requires mitigation under CEQA. However, the applicant is mitigating for impacts to state waters as well as for the loss of Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) habitat as part of the 1602 permit process. San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit inhabits the same habitat as LAPM on the project site, including the waters of the State. Mitigation for the loss of waters of the State and LAPM habitat will also compensate for loss of Black -tailed Jackrabbit habitat. There is no need to provide separate but overlapping mitigation for Black -tailed Jackrabbit. Comment: No mitigation is proposed for loss of San Bernardino kangaroo rat or its habitat because the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) concludes that the species is absent. Response: SBKR was presumed absent from the project sites based on the lack of habitat conditions preferred by the species. A five -night trapping study was done in March 2017, confirmrf the absence of SBKR. No mitigation is required. Comment: Silvery legless lizard and coast homed lizard -According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016), "The site has marginal or moderate habitat to support silvery legless lizard, coast homed lizard:" Certainly, no surveys were performed to determine the absence of either of these species. Response: Dr. Smallwood is correct in assuming no focused surveys were conducted. A suitability assessment ruled out the likelihood of these two reptile species being present. During several visits to the project over the course of two years by MBI biologists, neither species were observed and can be presumed absent. Sam April14,2017 Page 3 Comment: The CDFW (2012) survey protocol was not followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016), as detailed below. There is no evidence of expertise on burrowing owls or experience performing burrowing owl surveys by any of the biologists who visited the project cite in support of City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016), and there is no indication that anyone involved was familiar with burrowing owl research or conservation. To summarize, protocol -level surveys were not performed for burrowing owls on the site. One cannot rely on a single Visit to determine owl presence based on sign. Response: MBI biologists have extensive experience, nearly 100 years of combined experience, working with burrowing owls. MBI biologists have conducted hundreds of surveys for this species over the last 38 years. The 2012 protocols do not require surveys if suitable burrows are not found on the project site, precluding the presence of burrowing owls. There were no suitable burrows for burrowing owls on the project site. Comment: Removal and relocation of captured Los Angeles pocket mouse — measure needs much greater detail and specificity. As written, setting traps for an hour and catching no Los Angeles pocket mice would suffice. Response: A detailed translocation plan has been prepared and submitted to CDFW for review. This same plan was used to translocate nearly 400 SBKR from a site in Redlands to the Cajon Creek Conservation Bank in San Bernardino, CA, under close USFWS oversight. Comment: The City of Rancho Cucamonga proposes to compensate the loss of 3.2 acres of Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat at 2:1 ratio — basis for this measure is incorrect. Lawrey did not trap the remainder of the project site, so the City of Rancho Cucamonga (2016) cannot conclude that Los Angeles pocket mouse is limited in its distribution to the 3.2-acre trapping grid. Response: A subsequent trapping for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat in March 2017, which did cover the entire project site, confirmed that LAPM is confined to 3.2 acres in the southeast quadrant of the project site. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES march 29, 2017 To: Mr. Dana %X hitmer From: Mr. Christopher Brown, Director Re: Oakmont Santa Anita Responses to Comments (Air Quality) Please find our responses to the Lozeau-Drury LLP comments submitted on December 8, 2016 and December 13, 2016 regarding air quality below. Response to December 8, 2016 Letter A.1.1 The reviewer indicates that they do not agree with one or more of the assumptions used in the air quality model, however, the comment does not identify any specific flaws, assumptions or other issues with the air quality model. Instead, the commentator simply makes naked assertions that somehow the modeling completed for the project was flawed. This is simply not the case. MIG has re -reviewed the air quality analysis completed for the project and determined that the analysis was properly completed and is consistent with all SCAQMD protocols and methodologies. Thus, this comment is considered an unsubstantiated opinion of the project that does not identify any new significant information or make any fair argument for unaddressed environmental impacts. A.1.2 The reviewer further indicates that the results of the air quality assessment identify NOx emissions of 52 pounds per day (tbs/day) that are less than the threshold of 55 lbs/day. The reviewer continues that because the emissions are so "close" to the threshold that there is fair argument that tlhe project could result in a significant environmental impact. This assertion is incorrect both in the context of the California Environmental Quality- Act and industry practices in evaluating environmental impacts. CFQA does not require nor specify- any margin of error or tolerance by which an effect that is on the precipice of being significant is to be considered as such. A project's effect is either below or above a threshold. The reviewer provides no evidence supporting the claim that the proximity between project emissions and the threshold constitutes a potentially significant impact. Furthermore, the reviewer includes reference to CFQA case law that is misleading and incorrec& used to support their argument. The case law identified is related to the potential for the lack of a complete record to provide opportunity for fair argument because fair argument increases conversely with an increase in limited facts in the record. The reviewer does not identify any failure on the part of the City in estimating, analyzing, and concluding the impacts of NOR emissions are less than significant that would limit facts or conjure plausibility of other impacts. Moreover, Basin -aide uniform utilization of the SCAQNID's thresholds over the course of past decades has coincided with great improvements in the air quality in the Basin. (See attached Exhibit "A".) Thus, the fact that the au quality in the Basin has dramatically improved over the past decades of population and economic growth indicate the efficacy of the SCAQAID's thresholds of significance. A.1.3 Finally, the reviewer indicates that the project will result in significant cumulative NOX impacts without providing any substantive evidence in support of this claim. The reviewer indicates that the Initial Study failed to include a proper cumulative impact analysis because the project emissions were not combined with those of other warehouses in the Basin, such as would to use the "list method" of cumulative impact analysis identified in CEQA. This shows a failure on the part of the reviewer in understanding how air quality impacts are addressed in CEQA. First, the daily thresholds used for evaluation in the Initial Study are established to determine regional impacts related a to'a project's PL -� •j:.�.: SCIENCE ... , 1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 110 1 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 1 USA 951-787-9222 j WWW.MIGCOM.COM EXHIBIT i D6Pg100 March 29, 2017 Oakmont Santa Anita Responses to Comments (Air Quality) potential to result in a violation of applicable air quality standards in the Basin. Thus, the evaluation of air quality impacts prodded in the Initial Study is inherently a cumulative impact analysis in terms of regional context. Moreover, it is entirely appropriate to use the "projection method" of evaluating cumulative impacts by evaluating a project's consistency with the AQMP which by extension would ensure that cumulative impacts would not occur in both a spatial and temporal context. (See alto attached Exhibit "A".) A.1.4 This comment indicates that the City limited its cumulative air quality impact analysis to only the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This statement is not true in that it is clearly discussedin the Initial Study that the project was evaluated for consistency with the AQMP. The AQMP is applicable to the entire Air Basin and an appropriate context for the analysis of cumulative air quality impacts. A.1.5 This comment fists two projects that are either being proposed or under construction in Rialto and Ontario and claims that those projects combined with the proposed project will result in cumulative "NOR impacts". To clarify, we believe the author of the comment is claiming that the addition of this building, combined with the two mentioned, will result in NOR emissions such that the effect of the combined emissions will result in significant cumulative impacts. The impacts of concern are not identified but we presume that the effects on the health of individuals within the Basin are those that concern the comment author. This comment does not provide any evidence supporting the assertion that cumulative impacts will result from the combined emissions of construction, operation, or a mix of these activities. This statement does not constitute a fair argument that these buildings combined will "clearly" result in any cumulative impacts in that there is no, discussion or consideration of how a cumulative impact is defined and how the combined projects would meet that definition, either quantitatively or qualitatively. To claim that the combined emissions of three buildings is "clearly" a candidate for causing cumulative impacts in a Basin that covers 6,602 square miles is in fact not a clear statement and would appear to be implausible without presentation of factual evidence. Response to December 13, 2016 Letter ## In its December 13, 2016 letter, the commentator. makes the assertion that because the City's General Plan EIR allegedly made a "significant and unavoidable" .finding with respect to air quality- impacts,, that such a finding somehow eliminates the ability of the City to evaluate projects individually as they proceed through the environmental review process. The commentators are simply wrong. To the contrary, there is simply no law that somehow a City may not undertake an individual environmental review of project simply because it previously prepared an environmental impact report for a general plan update. Moreover, the SCAQIvID's 1993 Handbook expressly states that the Air District's thresholds of significance are utilized to determine project direct and cumulative impacts. Thus, if a project is less than significant on the project direct level, it may also be deemed to be less than significant on a cumulative basis. Conversely, simply because a large programmatic project (like an EIR for a General Plan update) may reflect a theoretical significant and unavoidable impact, this does not also mean that every single project that may be processed under that EIR in the future also has a significant and unavoidable impact. Generally, projects that are consistent with a program EIR are found to have less than significant impacts even for those issues found in the program EIR to be significant and unavoidable because in the pre,,ue of the Lead Agency, as entitled, the impacts were determined to be acceptable via overriding conditions. And indeed, the contribution of numerous projects and continued growth in the Basin has been managed such that air quality in the Air Basin has dramatically improved over the course of the past several decades in the face of extraordinary population and economic growth. (See attached Exhibit "A".) PAGE 2 D6 Pg101 March 29, 2017 Oakmont Santa Anita Responses to Comments (Air Quality) In conclusion, the comments submitted by the reviewer do not idendfy any new significant information regarding the impacts of the project in regards to air quality. The issues raised in the comment letter are not supported by evidence or reasonable inference. The issues are loosely connected with marginally relevant or completely irrelevant case law and CEQA guidelines references but do not support any fair argument due the speculative and unsubstantiated nature of the claims. No new mitigation or additional analysis is required. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the environmental review and clearance of the proposed project. Please contact me at 951-787-9222 if you have any questions or need additional information. Regards, Christopher vo slop er Bro ... Director of Environmental Services PAGE 3 2017.03.29 17:46:29 -07'00' D6 Pg 102 May 10, 2017 Dominick Perez, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Santa Anita Warehouse Project Dear Mr. Perez: As you know this law firm represents Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 783 ("LIUNA"). By way of two separate letters dated December 8, 2016 and December 13, 2016 ("Comment Letters"), LIUNA previously submitted comments on DRC 2015-00797, otherwise known as the Santa Anita Warehouse: Oakmont Industrial Group Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. In our Comment Letters, LIUNA raised a number of issues related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") including, but not limited to, issues pertaining to air quality, streambed, and biological resources. Following the receipt of LIUNA's comments, the applicant's representative reached out to us in an effort to respond to and ameliorate our expressed concerns. As a result of our positive dialogue with the applicant's representatives, we now understand that the applicant has already performed and/or agreed to the following new measures: Applicant has undertaken an additional San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat survey which has yielded negative results; 2. Applicant has agreed to undertake one more additional Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly survey (which is in additional to the three prior studies which all yielded negative results and will be included in the MND). If the survey returns positive results, the Applicant would then have to mitigate any impacts to DSF pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536.); 3. Applicant has confirmed that recent surveys show an absence of Parry's spineflower, mesa horkelia, and Brand's star phacelia; EXHIBIT U D6Pg103 Dominic Perez May 10, 2017 Page 2 of 2 4. The previous MND identified that Applicant has agreed to implement various identified measures to mitigate impacts to the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, and San Diego Black -Tailed Jackrabbit. 5. The previous MND identified that Applicant has agreed to implement various identified measures to mitigate potential impacts to Burrowing Owl & Coastal California Gnatcatcher. In light of the newly agreed upon measures above, and in light of the measures already imposed as part of the original MND, the purpose of this letter is to inform the City that LIUNA no longer opposes the project and instead now supports the prompt approval of the project. To this end, LIUNA unconditionally withdraws all of the comments made in its Comment Letters. LIUNA urges the City to move forward and promptly approve the Project. Finally, LIUNA does not believe that the additional analysis and measures agreed upon by the project applicant requires re -circulation of the MND. For example, under CEQA Guideline section 15073.5(b), recirculation may be required where (i) a new significant impact is identified and (ii) mitigation measures must be added to avoid the impact. Here, that Guideline does not apply for two separate reasons. First, the MND and the underlying studies have not identified any new "impact" with respect to DSF. To the contrary, all three of the underlying site specific focused surveys have all determined that no part of the Project site has ever been occupied by DSF. Simply stated, the revisions to the MND do not identify any new impact. Second. while the City has fashioned the request by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") that the applicant conduct one more pre -construction survey, having been requested by the Service, this is a stand-alone and self-executing requirement of federal law (16 U.S.C. 1536) which the applicant would have to comply with regardless of what the City's MND says or does not say with respect to this issue. Thus, we believe the requirements of CEQA Guideline section 15073.5(b) have demonstrably not been satisfied and that circulation may not be required. In fact the courts have made clear that recirculation is not required merely because the lead agency added mitigation measures requiring compliance with background and pre-existing environmental laws. (Leonoff v. Moterey County Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 1337,1356.) We therefore request that the City do not recirculate the MND and instead request that the City schedule the project for hearing at the earliest available Planning Commission hearing. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Richard Drury D6 Pg104 r Environmental Intelligence, LLC October 14, 2015 Mr. Steven Norton Consulting Biologist with BonTerra Psomas Supporting Corporate Environmental, Health & Safety Southern California Edison 1218 South Fifth Avenue Monrovia, CA 92016 SUBJECT: 2015 Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis) Focused Survey for the Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -transmission Line Project. SUMMARY: Environmental Intelligence, LLC (EI) has been retained by Southern California Edison (SCE) to conduct focused surveys for the federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly (DSFLF) for the for the proposed Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Redtictioti Sub -transmission Line Project. The Project contains approximately 33 acres of suitable Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly habitat. Two previous protocol surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2014 by AMEC Inc. No DSFLF were observed during these 2015 surveys or during previous surveys in 2013 and 2014. Dear Mr. Norton Environmental Intelligence, LLC (EI) has been retained by Southern California Edison (SCE) to conduct focused surveys during 2015 for the federally endangered Delhi Sands flower -loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on the Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge Reduction 66kV Re -conductor Project (Project) site located in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Surveys were completed between July I and September 17, 2015. Surveys were conducted by biologists Dale Powell (TE-839960-3) and the site was visited briefly by Jeremiah George. The Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -transmission Line Project contains approximately 33 acres of suitable habitat for the Delhi Sands flower -loving fly (DSFLF) located within the incorporated cities of Eastvale in Riverside County and Ontario in San Bernardino County, California. This technical report, submitted on October 13, 2015, details the methods and results of the 2015 focused survey effort. PROJECT LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The proposed Project site is located on approximately 33 acres of vacant lands located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Section 17 of Township 1 South, Range 6 West, as shown on the U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute Guasti, California Quadrangle). Exhibit I illustrates the general vicinity and location of the Project site. Overall topography of the site is relatively flat. Elevation of the Project area ranges between approximately 1,105 and 1,125 feet above mean sea level. Mapped soils onsite consist of Tujunga loamy sand, 0-5 percent slopes (TuB). The area immediately to the south and east of the site is mapped as Delhi fine sand (Db) (Exhibit 2). Visible surface substrates vary from apparent alluvial origin with a mixed gravel component to light-colored fine aeolian sand. Much of the site has fine sands present on the soil surface. Detailed photos showing soil conditions can be seen in Appendix A. In the general vicinity of the site is Day Creek, a channelized (cemented) portion exists immediately to the west of the Project site. The Project site is unevenly bisected by a dry wash which runs from the northeast to the southwest towards Day Creek channel. Both the coalescing nature of washes on the Cucamonga Plain prior to disturbance, and the great number of human -induced modifications to the EXHIBIT V teyu aoum coast Highway Suite #17, Laguna Beach, California, 92651 • Phone: 949A97.0931 • www, envir*4ntel.com D6 Pg105 Mr. Steven Norton October 14, 2015 Page 2 of 5 regional landscape, make it difficult to determine whether this wash had historically been more closely associated with either Day Creek or East Etiwanda Creek (Appendix A & Exhibits 1-3). Most of the soils on the site have been mapped as Tujunga loamy sand with 0 to 5 percent slopes, but there are small areas mapped as Tujunga gravelly loamy sand which has a component of Delhi fine sand (MRCS 2015). Generally, we observed more finely textures soils on terraces, including areas with soils likely to have originated from aeolian processes and forming a number of distinct light sand hummocks (Appendix A and Exhibit 3). Soils in the wash were comprised of courser sands and gravel (Appendix A & Exhibit 3). Generally, vegetation on the site is represented by two native habitat types, the Delhi sands form of coastal sage scrub or dune scrub and alluvial fan sage scrub. Alluvial fan sage scrub is a general vegetation type that was historically widespread across the greater Cucamonga plain, and the dune -form of coastal sage scrub is typical of sites considered part of the Delhi sand dune system (Appendix B). All areas of the site have some degree of disturbance. Existing site disturbances noted throughout the Project site includes extensive off -road vehicular (ORV) use, recent vegetation abatement and dumping of trash. Portions of the site may have once been used for agricultural purposes as a single old grape vine was observed. Nonnative species figure prominently in the site flora, especially within areas with a heavy history of disturbance by ORV and vegetation clearance. These areas have been invaded by thick stands of golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides ssp. exanriculata) (Appendices A & C) SURVEY METHODS Survey guidelines for the DSFLF direct that surveys be conducted by federally permitted biologists on nonconsecutive days between July 1 and September 20 between the hours of 1000 and 1400 Pacific Daylight Time (USFWS 1996, USFWS 2004). No more than 50 acres per day can be surveyed by one biologist (USFWS 1996). Since the establishment of interim protocol guidelines in 1996, adult DSFLF have been observed during the month of July. Subsequent to these observations, in a letter dated June 30, 2004, USFWS indicated that surveys begin no later than July I and conclude on September 20. DSFLF surveys at the Etiwanda- Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -transmission Line Project were conducted according to current USFWS DSFLF survey protocol. Surveys were conducted two times per week between July 1 and September 20, between the hours of 1000 and 1400. Surveys were conducted by meandering across the site to assure the whole area had adequate survey coverage. RESULTS No Delhi Sands flower loving flies were observed during the 2015 focused survey season. Daily survey temperatures averaged 88 degrees Fahrenheit, with starting temperatures averaging 79 degrees Fahrenheit and ending temperatures averaging 97 degrees Fahrenheit degrees. The minimum starting temperature was 70 degrees Fahrenheit and the maximum ending temperature was 101 degrees Fahrenheit. Daily wind speeds averaged 3-4 miles per hour. Daily cloud cover estimates averaged 5 percent, with starting cloud cover averaging 10-15 percent, and ending cloud cover averaging 0-5 percent. A number of rain events occurred over the course of the survey season. Surveys were not conducted during rain events or on the following day. A summary of survey dates, times, weather conditions, surveyor and survey results, is provided in Table 1. A list of plant and wildlife species observed on site are presented in Appendices B and C. Copies of survey field data sheets are provided in Appendix D. 2015 Protocol Surveys for the Delhi Sands Flower -Loving F D 6 Pg 106 Mr. Steven Norton October 14, 2015 Page 3 of 5 TABLE I. DSFLS SURVEY DATES, TIMES, AND WEATHER CONDITIONS Date (2015) Survey Biologist(s)* Weather Conditions Weather Conditions Hours (Start) (End) 1 July 0945 — 1330 DP, JG 75% clouds, wind 3-5 25 % clouds, wind24 mph, 86° F mph, 92° F 3 July 1000 —1300 DP 5 % clouds, 3-5 mph, clear, wind 24 mph, 80°F 91°F 80 % clouds, calm, 71 ° clear, wind 3-5 mph, 6 July 1000 — 1300 DP F 84° F 8 July 1000 — 1300 DP 95 % clouds, wind 1-3 clear, wind 3-6 mph, mph, 70 F 81 F 13 July 1000 — 1300 DP clear, wind 2-4 mph, clear, wind 3-6 mph, 76° F 90° F 15 July 1000 — 1300 DP clear, wind 1-3mph, clear, wind 3-6 mph, 77° F 89° F 21 July 1000 —1300 DP 80 % clouds, wind 2-7 50 % clouds, wind 4-6 mph, 78° F mph, 85° F 23 July 1000 — 1300 DP 15 % clouds, calm, 74° Clear, calm, 86° F 27 July 1000 — 1300 DP clear, winds 24 mph, clear, wind 3-5 mph, 73° F 85° F 29 July 1000 — 1300 DP 40% clouds, wind 2-4 clear, wind 4-6 mph, mph, 83° F 95° F 3 August 1000 — 1300 DP clear, calm, 79° F 5 % cloud cover, winds 4-6 mph, 91° F 5 August 1000 — 1300 DP clear, calm, 88° F clear, wind 2-4 mph, 98° F 10 August 1000 — 1300 DP Clear, calm, 70° F clear, wind 2-4 mph, 86° F 12 August 1000 — 1300 DP clear, wind 24 mph, clear, wind 5-7 mph, 80° F 94° F 17 August 1000 — 1300 DP clear, wind 1-3 mph, clear, 4-6 mph, 93° F 19 August 1000 — 1300 DP clear, calm, 79° F clear, wind 4-6 mph, 89 F 24 August 1000 — 1300 DP clear, calm, 81 ° F clear, wind 5-7 mph, 96° F 26 August 1000 — 1300 DP clear, calm, 84° F 10 % clouds, 3-5 mph, 96° F 31 August 1000 — 1300 DP clear, wind 2-4 mph, clear, wind 4-7 mph, 79° F 90° F 2 September 1000 —1300 DP clear, wind 3-5 mph,76° F clear, 3-5mph, 84° F 7 September 1000 — 1300 DP clear, calm , 87° F Clear, 24 wind 24 mph, 98° F 9 September 1000 — 1300 DP 5 % clouds, calm, 92° F 40 % clouds, calm, 101° F 14 September 1000 — 1300 DP, JG Clear, wind 3-5 mph, 5 % clouds, wind 3-5 77° F mph, 86° F 17 September 1000 —1300 DP 15 % clouds, wind 1-3 Clear, wind 4-6 mph mph, 71° F 79° F *Biologist(s): Dale Powell (DP), Jeremiah George (JG) 2015 Protocol surveys for the Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly D 6 Pg 107 Mr. Steven Norton October 14,2015 Page 4 of 5 Two previous years of surveys (2013-2014) also did not document the presence of DSFLF onsite (AMEC 2013, 2014). The site does support two species, the convergent apiocerid fly (Apiocera convergens) and the Delhi Sands metalmark (Apodemia virgulti nigrescens), that are closely associated with, and in the later species endemic to, the Delhi sand dune system. The site has habitat conditions appropriate for DSFLF and is within the presumed historic range of the species. Sincerely, Jeremiah N. George Senior Biologist, Project Manager ENVIRONMENTAL INTELLIGENCE Attachments: Exhibit 1: Project Location and Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Survey Area and USDA Soils Map Exhibit 3: Photo Location Map Appendix A: Representative Photographs Appendix B: Floral Compendium Appendix C: Faunal Compendium Appendix D: Survey Data Sheets LITERATURE CITED: AMEC Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc.. 2013. Year two Focused Survey for Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. AMEC Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc.. 2014. Year two Focused Survey for Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2015. Web Soil Survey. Online. http://websoilsut-vey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Interim General Survey Guidelines for the Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly. USFWS, Carlsbad, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Modifications of Interim General Survey Guidelines for the Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly. USFWS, Carlsbad, CA. 2015 Protocol Surveys ror the DeH Sands Flower -Loving F D 6 Pg 108 Mr. $teven Norton October 14, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Certification Statement for Surveys Conducted for the Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -transmission Line Project in 2015 I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represents my work. Dale Powell TE-839960-3 10/11 Surveyor Permit # Date 2015 Protocol Surveys for the DeH Sands Flower -Loving F1 D6 P9109 f f, L i ` 1 0 e '� t q�, Iy '•� lid 1yn .LN MP_II ZY� � f �6�`.If It. Survey Area Delhi Fine Sand (NRCS 2015) D 4Feet ' 19.800 iNG•BOO het EXHIBIT 2: SURVEY AREA OF ETIWANDA-ARBORS-FORGE-REDUCTION SUB -TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT I SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA D6 Pg111 J}t1 k. 1 11 • � 9 �Y � �� - � !6 s Oft: Of Vit �-- 401 a , ' l I tR •' � {5 e i �] Survey Area T Photograph Locations 0 mo 4w ' W.BM 1Mh=b01w1 EXHIBIT 3: PHOTOGRAPH LOCATIONS ETI WANDA-ARBORS-FORGE-R EDUCTION SUB -TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT I SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA D6 Pgl12 DSF'LF Surrey' Report October 2015 AppeF:dix A: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -Transmission Line Project Environmental Intelligence, LLC -A- I - D6 Pg113 Photo 1: View of one of a number of light sandy hummocks present onsite. California Buckwheat visible in the image. Habitat conditions similar to sites where DSFLF have been encountered. Photo 2: View showing area north of the east -west alignment. Habitat conditions on part of the visible area similar to sites where DSFLF have been encountered. Photo 3: View of the Scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum) and narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua) dominated wash that runs diagonally through the center of the site. Soil conditions unlikely to support DSFLF. Photo 4: View of general site conditions at the southwest corner of project ROW. View looking south by southeast of turn in line from north -south to an east -west orientation. Habitat heavily disturbed with some native perennials persisting such as California buckwheat and California croton. Habitat conditions similar to sites where DSFLF have been encountered. Representative Photos ETIWANDA-ARBORS-FORGE-REDUCTION SUB -TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT D6P9114 l- Photo 6: View of onsite general habitat conditions. Habitat conditions similar to sites where DSFLF have been encountered. Photo 8: View of habitat conditions onsite. Note vegetation in the foreground has been partially cleared. Habitat conditions similar to sites where DSFLF have been encountered. Photo 5: Close up view of an onsite sandy hummock with California buckwheat and Encelia farinosa visible in the image. Habitat conditions similar to sites where DSFLF have been encountered. Photo 7: View of habitat conditions onsite. Vegetation visible in foreground includes California croton and Astragalus sp.. Note vegetation in has been recently cleared. Habitat conditions similar to sites where DSFLF have been encountered. 0 Representative Photos ETIWANDA-ARBORS-FORGE-REDUCTION SUB -TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT D6Pg115 DSFLF Survey Repan Ocrober 2015 Appendix B: FLORAL COMPENDIUM Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -Transmission Line Project Environmental Intelligence, LL^ -B- I D6 Pg116 DSFI.F Survey Rqp n Oaober 201 SCIENTIFIC NAME (* introduced/nonnative species) COMMON NAME AMARANTHACEAE — AMARANTH FAMILY *Amaranthus albus prostrate pigweed ANACARDIACEAE — SUMAC FAMILY *Schinus molle Peruvian peppertree APIACEAE — CARROT FAMILY *Ciclospeimum leptophyllum marsh parsley ASTERACEAE — SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia acanthicmpa annual bur -sage Artendsia californica California sagebrush Baccharis salicifolia mule fat Corethrog}ne filaginifolia common sandaster Ericaneeria pinifolia pinebush Erigeron canadensis Canadian horseweed Logfia californica California cottonrose Heterotheca grandii fora telegraph weed *Lactaca serriola prickly lettuce Lepidosparnim squamatum scale broom Lessingia glandnlifera valley vinegar weed *Verbesina encelioides ssp. exauriculata golden crownbeard BORAGINACEAE — BORAGE FAMILY Amsinckia intermedia common fiddleneck 0jPtantha muricata pointed cryptantha Cyrptantha sp. BRASSICACEAE — MUSTARD FAMILY *Hirshfeldia incana short -podded mustard *Sisymbrium irio London rocket CACTACEAE — CACTUS FAMILY Opuntia x vaseyi Vasey's prickly pear CARYOPHYLLACEAE — CARNATION FAMILY Loeflingia squalTosa spreading loeflingia CHENOPODIACEAE — GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Chenopodium berlandieri pit -seeded goosefoot *Salsola, tragus Russian thistle EUPHORBIACEAE — SPURGE FAMILY Croton californicus California Croton Croton sedgerns turkey -mullein *Euphorbia maculata spotted spurge Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -Transmission Line Project -B-2- Environmental Intelligence, LLC D6 Pg117 DSFLF Surrey, Report October 101 S SCIENTIFIC NAME (* introduced/nonnative species) COMMON NAME FABACEAE — PEA FAMILY Acmispon antericanus Parish's lotus Acmispon glaber var. brevialatus short winged deerweed Astt•agalus pontonensis Pomona milk -vetch GERANIACEAE — GERANIUM FAMILY *Erodiunt cicutariuw red -stem Filaree LAMIACEAE — MINT FAMILY *Marrubium vulgare horehound Salvia apiana white sage ONAGRACEAE — EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY Camissonia micrantha miniature suncup Oenothera californica California primrose PLANTAGINACEAE — PLANTAIN FAMILY Plantago erecta California plantain POACEAE — GRASS FAMILY *Avena barbata slender wild oat *Bronws diandhis ripgut *Bromus madritensis subsp. mbens red brome *Festuca ngwros rattail six weeks grass *Hordewn nuarinum mouse barley *Schismus barbatatus common Mediterranean grass POLYGONACEAE — BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogontmt fasciculatrim var. polifolium California buckwheat Lastarriaea coriacea leather spineflower ROSACEAE —ROSE FAMILY *Pwnus sp. Introduced ornamental SALICACEAE —WILLOW FAMILY Salic exigua sandbar willow SIMAROUBACEAE—SIMAROUBAFAMILY *Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven SOLANACEAE —NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura wrighdi Wright's datura *Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco Nicotiana quadrivalis Indian tobacco ZYGOPHYLLACEAE — CALTROP FAMILY *Tribuhrs terrestris puncture vine Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -Transmission Line Project -B- 3 - Environmental Intelligence, LL" .E�ilfb D6 Pgl18 D.SFLF Survg- Report October 2015 Appendix C. FAUNAL COMPENDIUM Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -Transmission Line Project Environmental Intelligence,. LLC -C- 1 - D6 Pg119 DSFLF Surrey Report Oaober 201 S INVERTEBRATES INSECTS INSECTA FLYS DIPTERA Robber flys Asilidae No Name Robber Fly Efferia albibarbis Robber Fly Efferia sp. Apiocerid flys Apioceridae convergent apiocerid fly Apiocera convergens BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA Metalmarks Riodininae Delhi sands metalmark Apodenda virgulti nigrescens VERTEBRATES REPTILES REPTILIA Harmless Egg -Laying Snakes Colubridae Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum Sand Diego Gopher Snake Pinrophis catenifer annectens Tree, Side -blotched, and Horned Lizards Great Basin Fence Lizard Sceloponts occidentalis longipes Western Side -blotched Lizard Ufa stansburiana elegans BIRDS AVES SCREAMERS, SWANS, GEESE, AND DUCKS ANSERIFORMES Ducks, Geese, and Swans Anatidae Canada Goose. Branta canadensis PELICANS, HERONS, IBISES, AND ALLIES PELECANIFORMES Herons, Bitterns, and Allies Ardeidae Snowy Egret Egrefta thula HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES ACCIPITRIFORMES New World Vultures Cathartidae Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura HAWKS Accipitridae Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensi SHOREBIRDS, GULLS; AUKS, AND ALLIES CHARADRIIFORMES Lapwings and Plovers Charadriidae Killdeer Charadrius vocifenrs PIGEONS AND DOVES COLUMBIFORMES Pigeons and Doves Columbidae Rock Pigeon Cohtmba livia Mouming Dove Zenaida macroura SWIFTS AND HUMMINGBIRDS APODIFORMES Hummingbirds Trochilidae Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna Rufous Hummingbird Selasphonts nrfus Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -Transmission Line Project Environmental Intelligence, LLr -C-2- D6 Pg120 DSFLF Oaober 201 S CARACARAS AND FALCONS Caracaras and Falcons American Kestrel PASSERINE BIRDS Tyrant Flycatchers Black Phoebe Say's Phoebe Ash -throated Flycatcher Western Kingbird Vireos Warbling Vireo Crows and Jays American Crow Common Raven Larks Horned Lark Swallows Cliff Swallow Long-tailed Tits and Bushtits Bushtit Thrushes Western Bluebird Mockingbirds and Thrashers Northern Mockingbird Starlings European Starling Wood -Warblers Orange -crowned Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Wilson's Warbler Emberizids Chipping Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow White -crowned Sparrow Blackbirds Western Meadowlark Brewers Blackbird Bullock's Oriole Fringilline and Cardueline Finches and Allies House Finch Lesser Goldfinch FALCONIFORMES Falconidae Falco sparverius PASSERIFORMES Tyrannidae Sayornis nigricans Sayornis saya Myiarchus cinerascens Tyrannus verticalis Vireonidae Vireo gilvus Corvidae Caves brachyrhynchos Corvus corar Alaudidae Eremophila alpestris Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Aegithalidae Psaltripants minin+us Turdidae Sialia mexicana Mimidae Minors polyglottos Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris Parulidae Oreothlypis celata Setophaga coronat Cardellina pusilla Emberizidae Spizella passerina Melospiza lincolnii Zonotrichia leucophgs Icteridae Sturnella neglects Euphagrs cyanocephaltrs Icterns bullockii Fringillidae Haemorhous rnexicamrs Spinus psaltria Eliwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -Transmission Line Project -C- 3 - Environmental Intelligence, LLC "'rj D6 Pg121 DSFLF Surre)- Report October 2015 Old World Sparrows House Sparrow MAMMALS Rabbits and Hares Audubon's Cottontail San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit Squirrels California Ground Squirrel Pocket Gophers Botta's pocket gopher Canines Coyote Passeridae Passer domesticus MAMMALIA Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii Lepus californicus bennetti Sciuridae Sperntophilus beecheyi Geomyidae Thomontys bottae Canidae Canis latrans Etitvanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction Sub -Transmission Line Project Environmental Intelligence, LL^ -C- 4 - D6 Pg122 ,r- City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Design Review DRC2015-00797 Public Review Period Closes: June 28, 2017 Project Name: Oakmont Design Review Project Applicant: Chris Savage RGA 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Project Location (also see attached map): Approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue. Project Description: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 —RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN -A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet comprised of warehouse and office area for distribution purposes on a 17 acre site in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue; APNs: 0229-271-24, -25, and -26. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. June 28, 2017 Date of Determination Adopted By D6 Pg123 Design Review DRC2015-00797 Aerial Photo S D6 Pq 1"; D Print Form •1 ENVIRONMENTAL �� r - INFORMATION FORM RANCHO (Part I - Initial Study) CNOA (Please type orprint clearly asing Ink Use the tab key to move from one line to the next llae.) Phmftl)"If ni (0")477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed projectso that the City may review the project pursuant to City Policies, Ordinances, and Guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act', and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is Important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. Upon review of the completed Initial Study Part I and the development application, additional Information such as, but not limited to, traffic, noise, biological, drainage, and geological reports may be required. The project application will not be deemed complete unless the identified special studies/reports are submitted for review and accepted as complete and adequate. The project application will not be scheduled for Committees' review unless all required reports are submitted and deemed complete for staff to prepare the Initial Study Part 11 as required by CEQA. In addition to the filing fee, the applicant will be responsible to pay or reimburse the City, its agents, officers, and/or consultants for all costs for the preparation, review, analysis, recommendations, mitigations, etc., of any special studies or reports. INCOMPLEMAPPLICATIONSWILNOTBEPROCESS ED Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal, City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains; PMJect Title: Oakmont Santa Anita Name & Address of project owner(s): CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC 3520 Piedmont Rd., Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30305 Name & Address of developerorproject sponsor. Oakmont Industrial Group 3520 Piedmont Rd., Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30305 Updated 411112013 Page 1 of 10 D6 Pg125 DI Contact Person 8 Address., John Atwell, 3520 Piedmont Rd., Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30305 Name 8 Address ofperson preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone Number, 775-250-1495 Information indicated by an asterisk (•) is not required of non -construction CUPS unless otherwise requested by staff. •1) Provide afull scale (8-12 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which Includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views Into the site from the north, south, east, and west, views into and ftpM the site from the primary access points that serve the site; and representative views of significant features from, the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): The project is located on Santa Anita Avenue north of 6th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 0229-271-24-0000 thru 0229-271-26.0000 65) Gross Site Area (adsq. It): 16.295.acres '6) Nel Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets 8 proposed 16.295 acres dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): N/A Updated 411112013 Page 2 of 10 D6 Pg 126 8) Include a description of allpermits which will be necessary from the GtyofRancho Cucamonga and othergovemmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: Design Review and Environmental Assessment 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, Otte 89sources ofinformation (i.e., geological and(orhydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): Please refer to attached Environmental Summary prepared by MIG Hogle-Ireland on 4/312015. Updated 4/1112013 Page 3 of 10 D6 Pg127 10) Describe the known cultural and/orhisforical aspects ofthe site. Cite all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): There are no known cultural or historical aspects of the site. 11) Describe any noise sources and theirlevelsthatpofv_affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses., Please refer to the Noise Study in the attached Environmental Summary prepared by MIG Bogle -Ireland date$ April 3, 2015. 12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use Mat will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheets) it necessary. The project includes construction of a high cube, logistics warehouse that includes approximately 10,000 squff feet of office for a total building area of 339,000square feet on 16.295 acres. The proposed building will be constructed as a Concrete Tilt Up building. The project includes 190 parking spaces where 188 are required. 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc), intensity of land use (one-famify, apartmenthouses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): The project site is surrounded by industrial uses or vacant land on all sides. All of the land adjacent to the project site are zoned industrial. The location is infill in nature and the site has been heavily disturbed. Updated 4/1112013 Page 4 of 10 D6 Pg128 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No, the project is of a similar use, scale and character of the surrounding properties. 15) Indicate the type of short -tern and long -tern noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on -site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? Please refer to the Noise Study in the attached Environmental Summary prepared by MIG Hogle-Ireland date April 3, 2015. •16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: There are no scenic trees on site and multiple new trees will be planted both on the project site. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (Including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains., None. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further claribcalfon, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at (909) 967-2591. a. Residential (gaUday) b. Commercialgnd. (gal/day/ac) 2,020 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Peak use (gaWay) Peak use (gaUminrac) ❑ Septic Tank [El Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed Indicate expected daily sewage generation:(See AttachmentAfor usage estimates). Forfunhercladfication,please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at (909) 987.2591. a. Residential (galfday) b. Commerciallindustrial (gal/day/ac) 2,020 Updated 4/11/2013 Page 5 of 10 D6 Pg129 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Data chetl indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum /at size and maximum lot size: Attached (Indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project. Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c, Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: Industrial warehouse and corporate office. Updated 4111/2013 Page 6 of 10 D6 Pg130 26) Total floor area ofcommerclat,Industrial, or institutional uses by typo, 329,000 SF of warehouse, 10,000 SF of office. 27) Indicate hours of operation: Unknown at this time. 28) Number of employees: Total: Unknown at this time. Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Pmvlde breakdown of anficipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): Unknown at this time. 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City. Unknown. •31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type, and amount ofalrpollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): Please refer to the Air Quality Study in the attached Environmental Summary prepared by MIG Hogle-Ireland dated April 3, 2015. ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, andflood control agencies serving the prrject been contacted to determine theirabiliby to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. Yes, and they all were affirmative. Updated 4111/2013 Page 7 of 10 D6 Pg131 K 33) In the known history of this property; has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and(orloxic materials include, but are not limited to PCBs; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, ails, solvents, and otherpammable liquids andgases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. No. 34) Willihe proposed project involve the temporary orlong-term use, storage, ordischaige of hazardous and(ortoxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory orall such materials to be used and proposed method ofdisposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. No. 35) The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fee. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clark of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission/Planning Director hearing: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this protect to the best ofmyablllty, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct lot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. I j Date: Signature: � Title: e,Y., n Updated 4111/2013 Page 8 of 10 D6 Pg132 lID, ATTACHMENT$'A' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED WATER USE AND SEWER FLOWS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (Data Provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District February 2003) Water Usaae Single -Family Multi -Family Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Office Professional Institutional/Government Industrial Park Large General Industrial Heavy Industrial (distribution) Sewer Flows Single -Family Multi -Family General Commercial Office Professional Industrial Park Large General Industrial Heavy Industrial (distribution) 705 gallons per EDU per day 256 gallons per EDU per day 1000 gal/day/unit (tenant) 4082 gal/day/unit (tenant) 973 gaUday/unit (tenant) 6412 gaUday/unit (tenant) 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant) 2020 gal/day/unit (tenant) 1863 gal/day/unit (tenant) 270 gallons per EDU per day 190 gallons per EDU per day 1900 gal/day/acre 1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government 3000 gaUday/acre 2020 gal/day/acre 1863 gaUday/acre Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District Engineering & Water Resources Departments, Urban Water Management Plan 2000 Updated 4111/2013 Page 9 of 10 D6 Pg133 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 6061 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909)988-8511 Updated 4/1112013 Page 10 of 10 D6 Pg 134 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DRC2015-00797 2. Related Files: N/A 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015- 00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN - A proposal to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet comprised of.warehouse and office area for distribution purposes on a 17 acre site in the General Industrial (GI) District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue; APNs: 0229-271-24, -25. and -26. 4. Project Sponsor Name and Address: RGA Office of Architecture and Design Attn: Chris Savage 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (GI) District 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is comprised of three (3) vacant parcels with a combined area of approximately 17 acres. The site is approximately 880 feet (east to west) by approximately 594 feet (north to south). The site is vacant with limited vegetation and is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while.to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. The zoning of the abutting properties to the north, south, east and west is General Industrial (GI) District. The site generally slopes from north to south with a gradient of less than 2 percent and an elevation at the north and south sides of approximately 1,127 to 1,108, respectively. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Dominick Perez Associate Planner (909) 477-2750, extension 4315 D6 Pg135 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): N/A GLOSSARY — The following abbreviations are used in this report: CALEEMOD — California Emissions Estimator Model CVWD — Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR — Environmental Impact Report FEIR — Final Environmental Impact Report FPEIR - Final Program Environmental Impact Report NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOx— Nitrogen Oxides ROG — Reactive Organic Gases PMio — Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD — South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP —Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact," 'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than -Sign ificant-Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (x) Aesthetics (x) Biological Resources (x) Greenhouse Gas Emissions () Land Use & Planning () Population & Housing () Transportation(Traffic (x) Mandatory Findings of Significance (x) Agricultural Resources (x) Cultural Resources () Hazards'& Waste Materials () Mineral Resources () Public Services (x) Tribal Cultural Resources (x) Air Quality (x) Geology & Soils (x) Hydrology & Water Quality (x) Noise () Recreation () Utilities & Service Systems DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (✓) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a 'Potentially Significant Impact' or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg136 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 ( ✓) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. MkIVI .. _ D. - - -. Ali � � �� Date:r . Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg137 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g mSources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im acl incorporated Impact hn act EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? () () () (✓) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but () () () (✓) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or () () () (✓) quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, () () (✓) ( ) which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) There are no significant vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within a view corridor according to General Plan Figure LU-6. b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) The site is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26). The site is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. The site will be developed with a logistics building that will be similar to other logistics buildings in the City. Staff has determined that the architecture of the building is consistent with the design standards, guidelines; and policies established by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project complies with the City's technical requirements including floor area ratio; minimum building, parking lot, and wall setbacks; dock and storage area screening; and landscape coverage as described in the Development Code. Approval by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission is required prior to construction of the subject building. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) The project would increase the number of streetlights and security lighting used in the immediate vicinity. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on site plans which require review for consistency with City standards that require shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg 138 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Wlh Than PP 9 Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomorated Impact Im act 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or () () (✓) ( ) Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a () () () (✓) Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re -zoning of, O O O V ) forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest () () () (✓) land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, () () () (✓) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26). The site is characterized by is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. There are approximately 209 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga according to the General Plan and the California Department of Conservation Farmland Map 2010. Concentrations of Important Farmland are sparsely located in the southern and eastern parts of the City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Farmland in the southern portion of the City is characterized by industrial, residential, and commercial land uses and Farmland in the eastern portion of the City is within the Etiwanda area and planned for development. Further, a large number of the designated farmland parcels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General Plan FPEIR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg139 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant WithThan Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Im act b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. c) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that is zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related to the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. No mitigation is required. d) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related of the loss or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. e) The site is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26). The site is generally characterized by industrial development to the north, east, as well as on the south and west, opposite of the existing Southern California Edison easement area. There are no agricultural uses within one mile of the project site. Furthermore, there are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land. Therefore, there is no potential for conversion of forest land to a non -forest use. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the () () () (✓) applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute () (✓) () ( ) substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of () (✓) () ( ) any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant () (✓) () ( ) concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial () () () (✓) number of people? Comments: a) As discussed in subsection b, the project would not exceed any air quality standards and would not interfere with the region's ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards for Criterion 1 Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations (local air quality impacts) or Criterion 2 Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP (consistency with the 2003 AQMP). Therefore the project is consistent with the 2003 AQMP. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg140 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP gorma Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorconsted Impact Impact b) Both the State of California and the Federal government have established health -based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PMto), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PM2.e) microns in diameter and lead. Among these pollutants, ozone and particulate matter (PMto and PM2.5) are considered regional pollutants while the others have more localized effects. In addition, the State of California has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (1-12S), vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. The City of Rancho Cucamonga area is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this include motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall and on highways. SCAQMD also regulates stationary sources of pollution within a jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the Air Resources Board (ARB). The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the Basin the worst air pollution problem in the nation. The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude); this inversion (coupled with low wind speeds) limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six major pollutants, termed criteria pollutants: ozone (03), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PMlo), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PM2.5) microns in diameter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the Federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment" or "non -attainment" depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Nonattainment areas have additional restrictions as required by the EPA. The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring the Basin's compliance with the FCAA. The South Coast Air Basin is in Non -Attainment Status for Ozone, PMio and PM2.5. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include daily emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and consistency with the current AQMP. As prescribed by SCAQMD, an Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment (March 2015) was prepared by MIG Hogle- Ireland that utilizes CaIEEMod (Version 2013.2.2) to evaluate short-term construction emissions and short-term construction emissions for localized significant thresholds, long - Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg141 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No In act Inconaorated Im act impact term operational emissions, operation emissions for localized significant thresholds, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Short Term (Construction): Project Emissions and Impacts The project proposes to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet on a parcel of 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26). The project site is currently undeveloped. The potential emissions associated with construction of the project are described in the following sections. Summary of Peak Construction Emissions (Emissions Summary of Overall Construction with Best Available Control Measures) Maxtmufri:Daily,Construction Emissions",(Ibs/ddvl) F i± Source tROG NOx CO .t S02 PM�or PM ` r Summer 2016 8.71 74.92 59.14 0.11 7.25 4.76 2017 5.19 37.43 47.68 0.10 1.84 2.97 Winter 2016 8.84 74.93 59.90 0.11 7.25 4.76 2017 5.30 37.81 48.60 0.09 6.18 2.97 Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Substantial? No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gases; NO, = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; S02= oxides of sulfur; PM,o and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment - (Table 9) (CalEEMod Output) MIG/Ho le -Ireland, March 2015 Construction activities associated with the project will result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOz, SOx, PMio and PM2.5 and are expected from the following construction activities: demolition, grading (including soil import), building construction, painting (architectural coatings) paving (curb, gutter, flatwork, and parking lot), and construction worker commuting. Localized Significance Summary (Construction Emissions with Best Available Control Measures According to the Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment prepared by MIG/Hogle- Ireland in March 2015, maximum daily oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions will occur during construction of the project, grading of the project site, and paving of facility parking lots and drive aisles. Emissions from construction activities will not exceed any localized threshold. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg142 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than significant Mitigation Significant Na Impact Incor oraletl Inn act Im act LocallzedSlgn ficance ThresholdAnalysis (Ibsfday)° n Phaseuf CO Grading 49.14 74.81 6.97 4.70 Building Construction (2016) & Santa Anita Extension 25.80 39.14 2.63 2.46 Building Construction (2017) 18.13 26.41 1.78 1.67 Paving On Site 14.73 20.30 1.14 1.05 Architectural Coating 1.87 2.19 0.17 0.17 Threshold 2,193 270 16 9 Potentially Substantial? No No No No CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PMto and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment - (Table 11) (CalEEMod Output) MIG/Ho le -Ireland, March 2015 Equipment Exhausts and Related Construction Activities Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions; however, as shown in the tables above, the amount will not exceed any threshold of significance. Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally emissions associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut -and -fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project -by project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operation and weather conditions at the time of construction. Construction emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions and other factors. The proposed project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust. Architectural Coatings Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are similar to ROCS and are part of the Oa precursors. Based on the proposed project, it is estimated that the proposed project will result in a maximum of approximately 8.84 Ibs of VOC per day (combined for all construction sources) during construction. Therefore, this VOC emission is the principal air emission and is less than the SCAQMD VOC threshold of 75 Ibs/day. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg143 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S pP g Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Inco orated Impact Impact Odors Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during construction would emit odors. However, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. In compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 the proposed uses are not anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. Therefore, objectionable odors posing a health risk to potential on -site and existing off -site uses would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Naturally Occurrino Asbestos The proposed project is located in San Bernardino County and it is not among the counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. In addition, there has been no serpentine or ultramafic rock found in the project area. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction is small and less than significant. Based on the discussion above and with implementation of the following Best Available Control Measures (BACM) identified in the Air Quality Impact Analysis (MIG Hogle-Ireland, March 2015) as mitigation measures, short-term, construction impacts will be less -than - significant: 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, a Coating Restriction Plan (CRP), consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines and a letter agreeing to include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts a requirement that the contractors adhere to the CRP. The CRP measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of City Building Director. These may include the following: That volatile organic compounds (VOC) of proposed architectural coatings not exceed zero grams per liter for interior and exterior applications. This measure shall conform to the performance standard that emissions of volatile organic compounds from application of interior or exterior coatings shall not exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The CRP shall specify use of High - Volume, Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns for application of coatings. Cumulative Impacts: Short -Term Construction Emissions Continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. During the construction phases of development, on -site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an on -going Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg144 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Less Than Signi'eant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: s9en`�Im Mit g,G'h Sigohan ficant No Im act Into orated Im act Im act industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the future build out of the City. Based upon on the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS7G) estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan (FPEIR), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM1o) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore, they would all be cumulatively considerable if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less -than -significant. This city-wide increase in emissions was identified as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the Section 4.3 of the General Plan FPEIR. With implementation of the following best practices and mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize short-term air quality impacts, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be less -than -significant: 2) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 3) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 4) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 5) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction -grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 6) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 7) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 8) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high -volume, low-pressure spray. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg145 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 Lass Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Incur crated Impact Im ad 9) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. Pave or apply gravel to any on -site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 10) The site shall be treated with water or other soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 11) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction.areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PMto emissions. Project Long Term (Operational) Emissions and Impacts Long-term air pollutant emissions are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any project -related changes. The proposed project would result in a net increase in the amount of development in the area; therefore, the proposed project would result in net increases in both stationary and mobile source emissions. The stationary source emissions would come from additional natural gas consumption for on -site buildings and electricity for the lighting in the buildings and at the parking area. As shown in the following tables, project implementation will not exceed any significance thresholds. No long-term, operational impacts will occur as a result of the project. Summary of Peak Operational Emissions �. �,: Maximum Operational DailytEimss�oris (Ibslday) ' ¢� ,{',=: Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg146 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 Less Than Signifcant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Potentially Significant Wth Mitigation Than Significant No In act Incorporated Impact Im act Source _ ROG ; ,NOX , ,; C0 S02i PM10 PM2 5 Summer Area Sources 17.65 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Demand 0.50 4.58 3.85 0.03 0.35 0.35 Mobile Sources 2.80 26.76 35.71 0.11 5.83 1.85 On -Site Equipment 2.17 19.84 17.39 0.03 9.14 3.42 Summer Total 23.12 51.18 57.03 0.17 15.32 5.62 Winter Area Sources 17.65 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Demand 0.50 4.58 3.85 0.03 0.35 0.35 Mobile Sources 2.94 27.70 39.02 0.11 5.83 1.86 On -Site Equipment 2.17 19.84 17.39 0.03 9.14 3.42 Winter Total 23.26 52.12 60.34 0.17 15.32 5.63 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Substantial? No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = oxides of sulfur; PMto and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment - (Table 10) (CaIEEMod Output) MIG/Hogle-Ireland, March 2015 ' 'Localized Slgmficance Thresholds Analysis for, 0pgratK66s (16s/day) ' ' Source `` '" y 1C0 NOz PMm ';P.Mis Landscaping 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Natural Gas 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.01 On -Site Idling 0.06 0.49 0.00 0.00 On -Site Equipment 17.39 19.84 1.30 1.21 Total 17.64 20.52 1.31 1.22 Threshold 1,708 248 4 2 Significant? No No No No CO = carbon monoxide; NO, = oxides of nitrogen; PMto and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment - (Table 12) (CaIEEMod Output) MIG/Hogle-Ireland, March 2015 Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg147 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 14 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Tnan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Im act Im act C) Cumulative Impacts (Long Term/Operational Emissions) The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the potential impacts to air quality based on the future build out of the City. In the long-term, continued development would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon on the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan FPEIR; therefore, all developments would be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a less -than -significant level. This City-wide increase in emissions was identified as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the Section 4.3 of the General Plan FPEIR. With implementation of the following mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize long-term, operational air quality impacts, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be less -than -significant: 12) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. 13) Schedule truck deliveries, and pickups during off-peak hours. 14) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 15) Landscape with native and/or drought -resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 16) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 17) Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV-MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. 18) All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 19) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 20) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 21) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 4.3), continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and Rev 3-1-16 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 15 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im act State standards. The General Plan FPEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. With implementation of mitigation measures listed in subsection b) above from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR, which are designed to minimize long-term, operational air quality impacts, cumulative impacts will be less -than -significant. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is not located within mile of the following sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptor is the Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park at 8408 Rochester Avenue located about 0.62-mile to the northwest of the project site. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures listed under subsection b above and the following mitigation measure will reduce any potential impact to less -than -significant levels. 22) All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. e) Construction odors (Short-term) may include odors associated with equipment use including diesel exhaust or roofing, painting and paving. These odors are temporary and would dissipate rapidly. Operational odors (Long-term) are not typically associated with office and logistics related uses. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or () (✓) () ( ) through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian () (✓) () ( ) habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg149 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 16 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Signifcant wan Mitigation man Signifcant No Im act Incor orated Im act Im act c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally () (✓) () ( ) protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native () () () (✓) resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances () () () (✓) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat () () () (✓) Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, -25, and -26). The site is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to General Plan Figure RC-4 and Section 4.10 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources. The site is, highly disturbed and is characterized by heavy (illegal) off -road motorcycle use and trash and other debris scattered throughout the site. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised consistent with the public participation requirements of CEQA. During the circulation and review periods of previous versions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration between April 20, 2016 and May 25, 2016, and between November 7, 2016 and December 14, 2016, comments were received by the following entities and/or individuals: (i) Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 783, by way of 2 letters from the law firm Lozeau Drury dated December 8 and December 13, 2016; the (ii) California Native Plant Society by way of a letter from Jeremiah George dated December 14, 2016 (iii) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife dated May 20. 2016. This revised Mitigated Negative Declaration provides responses to all of the comments made during the previous public review period. In addition, many of the comments made on the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration were a result of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration not properly identifying and referencing copies of the numerous technical studies that served as the foundation to the previous environmental assessment. To resolve any ambiguities in this regard, this Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg150 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 17 Less Than Signifcant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant win Mitigation Than Signifcant No Im act Inca ora[etl Im act Im act section of this revised Mitigated Negative Declaration relies on, and incorporates by reference the following documents: • November 5, 2013 Year 1 Focused Surveys for Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly, AMEC October 27, 2014 Year 2 Focused Surveys for Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly, AMEC October 15, 2015 Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly Focused Survey, Environmental Intelligence, LLC June 1, 2016 Department of the Army Nationwide Permit Verification July 2016 Special -Status Species Habitat Suitability Assessment, Michael Baker International July 12, 2016 Santa Anita Avenue — Additional Information on the Historic Top of Bank for 1602 Streambed Alteration Application, Salix Consulting, Inc. June 2016 Special -Status Plant Survey Report for the 37-Acre Santa Anita Avenue Study Area June 7, 2016 Responses to Comments from CDFW, Salix Consulting, Inc. July 15, 2016 Presence/Absence Focused Survey Report, Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, Jericho Systems August 2016 Special -Status Species Habitat Suitability Assessment, Michael Baker International August 2016 Biological Resources Assessment for the Santa Anita Avenue Study Area, Salix Consulting, Inc. November 2016, Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Translocation Program March 22, 2017 Results of Trapping Survey for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, SJM Biological Consultants March 27, 2017 Responses to Comments by Jeremiah George, Michael Baker International Undated, Responses to Comments by Lozeau Drury, Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D Undated, Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification No. 1600-2016-0081-R6 As stated above, all of these documents are incorporated by reference into this revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and will be part of the technical appendices contained in this revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg151 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 18 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Inconeorated hn act Im act Special -Status Plants Marginal habitat is present on -site to support three (3) special -status plant species: Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula), and Brand's star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris). The blooming periods for these three species are, respectively, April to June, March to July, and March to May. Salix Consulting, Inc. (Salix) conducted a special -status plant survey on the project site in April 2016 and did not detect any of the aforementioned species, nor any additional special - status plant species. Due to the absence of these special -status plant species, no mitigation is required. Special -Status Animals According to evaluations conducted by Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) and Salix between 2014 and 2016, several special -status animals have a low or higher potential to occur on -site. These include Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) Twenty (20) LAPM were identified on the project site during trapping surveys conducted by Jericho Systems Incorporated in 2016. The mice were trapped in areas associated with the on -site drainage feature and falling under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Approximately 3.2 acres in which the LAPM were found in 2016, which are inclusive of the waters of the State and alluvial scrub, will be lost as a result of site development. The following mitigation measures are provided in order to reduce impacts to LAPM to a less than significant level: 1) Prior to any soil disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, a qualified and permitted biologist shall conduct trapping surveys on the project site. All captured LAPM shall be removed from the site and relocated to a suitable offsite location. The offsite location must be approved in advance by CDFW and the approval shall be submitted to the City. The City shall also receive a report documenting the results of this trapping and relocation effort, as well as the results of Mitigation Measure #2 below. 2) All suitable pocket mouse burrows shall be flagged prior to construction, and a qualified and approved biological monitor shall be present during initial site construction in order to capture and relocate any remaining LAPM or other special -status animal species that are found on the project site. 3) Because of the loss of suitable LAPM habitat, this habitat of 3.2 acres shall be mitigated at an offsite location at a 3:1 ratio. The applicant shall purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar alluvial scrub habitat within the watershed. All mitigation must be approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and in place prior to construction. It should be noted that the California Department of Fish & Wildlife has approved the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Translocation Program prepared by Michael Baker International dated November 2016. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg152 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 19 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Mitigation Than Significant No Im acl Incorporated Impact Im act San Diego Black -Tailed Jackrabbit San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit was identified on -site by Michael Baker in 2014 during a standard habitat assessment and again 2016 during a focused habitat suitability assessment. No additional mitigation is proposed for this species. No relocation will be required, as jackrabbits readily scatter when disturbed and Mitigation Measure 3 mitigates for the loss of habitat for this species to achieve a less than significant impact. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) The alluvial fans along the south slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains support Riversidean Alluvian Fan Sage Scrub habitat which is known to support the federally listed San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR). SBKR generally requires the presence of sandy to loamy soils, alluvial scrub habitat, connectivity to natural hydrological processes such as rivers and streams needed for scour to maintain openness of the alluvial scrub habitat, and moderate to low level of disturbances. Although the project site does contain the appropriate soils and low quality alluvial scrub habitat, the site is no longer subjected to the hydrologic regime associated with an active channel that carries flood waters through an area. These flows are now captured upstream and conveyed away from the project site. The project site is also subjected to heavy disturbance levels associated with off - road vehicle uses. There are several established dirt bike tracks within the project site. The lack of these latter two habitat features, hydrologic scouring and moderate to low levels of disturbance, and the fact that the site is generally surrounded by development on all four sides, is expected to prevent SBKR from inhabiting the site. As previously mentioned, a trapping study of the site was conducted by Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. with Michael Baker International in 2016 to determine whether Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, a state species of concern, was present and would have detected SBKR if present. Los Angeles Pocket Mouse was determined to be present, however, SBKR was not trapped on the project site and therefore can be presumed to be absent under professional standards. In addition, as a result of comments made during the initial public review period, the project applicant commissioned a new trapping survey for the SBKR; the results of this survey confirmed the absence of SBKR from the site (see SJM Biological Consultants Report, March 22. 2017.) Therefore, due to the reasons listed above, no impact is anticipated to the SBKR and no mitigation is necessary. Silvery Legless Lizard & Coast Horned Lizard The site has marginal or moderate habitat to support silvery legless lizard, coast horned lizard. No additional mitigation is proposed for silvery legless lizard or coast horned lizard. It is assumed that Mitigation Measure #2 above will adequately minimize direct impacts to these two species, and Mitigation Measure #3 above will mitigate for the loss of more suitable habitat for these species, achieving a less than significant impact. Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly (DSF) During the public review process for the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) inquired as to whether the Project Site had even been subject to focused surveys for the Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly (DSF). As stated previously, while the Project site had been the subject of three previous focused surveys, this information was not properly referenced in the previous Negative Declaration which of course was the source of the confusion expressed by the USFWS regarding the status of previous DSH Surveys. As reflected in the previous three DSF studies, DSF has never been detected on site and all surveys of the site have produced negative results see, e.g., Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg153 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 20 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP gorma Potentially Significant wth Mitigation man Significant No Impact Incorporated Im act Impact November 5, 2013 Year 1 Focused Surveys for Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly, AMEC; October 27, 2014 Year 2 Focused Surveys for Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly, AMEC; October 15, 2015 Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly Focused Survey, Environmental Intelligence, LLC.) Thus, because the results of the previous DSF surveys reflect the absence of DSF on site, implementation of the project is not expected to result in impacts to DSF. Nevertheless, as a result of the consultation with USFWS, the Project Applicant and the USFWS have agreed that the Applicant will perform, as a standard pre -construction design feature, an additional DSF survey in 2017. If, as expected, the survey is negative, the Applicant will be permitted to commence grading and construction. If the survey returns positive results, the Applicant would then have to mitigate any impacts to DSF pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536.). The following mitigation measure will reduce the potential impacts to the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly to a less than significant level: 4) Prior to any ground disturbance of the site, a current survey for Delhi Sands flower -loving fly must be completed by a permitted biologist following United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines. The survey and results shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If the survey is negative, development can proceed prior to the next survey season. If development has not proceeded by the next survey season, another survey will be required. If a survey is positive, the project proponent must obtain an incidental take permit or other take authorization from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service before proceeding with the development. Burrowing Owl & Coastal California Gnatcatcher The site has marginal or moderate habitat to support burrowing owl, and coastal California gnatcatcher. Due to the marginal on -site habitat for both species, focused surveys for burrowing owl or coastal California gnatcatcher were not recommended by the applicant's biologist. However, the following mitigation measures are provided in order to reduce impacts to burrowing owl and nesting avian species to a less than significant level: 5) Prior to soil disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, a preconstruction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted on the project site. A copy of the survey and results shall be submitted to the City upon completion. The survey shall conform to the most current official guidelines, currently the March 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If no owls are observed on the project site, construction may continue without any additional mitigation. If owls are found on the project site during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), CDFW shall be consulted to coordinate and establish suitable avoidance buffers, if necessary, until after the nesting has completed. If owls are found on the project site outside of the nesting season (September 1 through January 31), CDFW shall be consulted to coordinate the closure of active burrows and the relocation of the on -site owls. 6) Prior to soil disturbance, vegetation removal and issuance of a grading permit, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg154 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 21 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact conducted within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. A copy of the survey and results shall be submitted to the City upon completion. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer is expanded to 500 feet. It is recommended that a biological monitor be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities can occur. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any confirmed nest sites (with no -disturbance buffers) during construction to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturb the birds and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. The nests shall be monitored until all nests have been abandoned (for non - Project related reasons) or the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are found on -site during this time period, construction activities may continue as planned. b) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to General Plan Figure RC-4 and Section 4.10 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources. However, according to the Biological Resource Assessment prepared by Salix, within and outside of the defined CDFW 1602 jurisdiction (area beyond the Corps' 0.39 acre jurisdiction extending to the top of bank) there is an alluvial scrub plant community. The alluvial scrub community associated with the CDFW 1602 jurisdictional area occupies a 3.2-acre portion of the eastern half of the 17-acre project site. It is characterized by a few species of shrubs in a fairly sparse arrangement. The most common component of the alluvial scrub community is California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Other components include sandbar willow (Salix exigua), scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), pine goldenbush (Ericameria pinofolia), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and giant reed (Arundo donax). The willow component of this habitat type is a remnant of predevelopment times when more surface water flowed through the area and into the Day Creek drainage channel. It is possible that the presence of this species is supported by the availability of groundwater (many feet below the surface). Willows are phreatophytes, meaning they are deep rooted and may obtain their water from deep sources, and once established, can sustain existence even though surface waters are no longer available. This is likely the case with these willows as no other hydrophytic species occur in the study area. According to the applicant's biologist, Salix, these willows do not constitute a riparian condition and are merely a part of the alluvial scrub habitat. Based on a site visit in April of 2016, Salix also determined a total of 0.09 acre of Lepidospartum squamatum was present onsite. Of the 17-acre site, this represents one half of one percent cover of the site (0.5%). According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a presence of greater than 1% of this species would classify the community as scale broom scrub which has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3. Since the site contains less than 1% cover, the habitat is not considered scale broom scrub and its removal is considered less than Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg155 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 22 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiafiy cam Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incur oratetl Impact Im act significant. However, Mitigation Measure #3 above addresses the loss of alluvial scrub to further reduce the impacts. c) The project site was determined through a jurisdictional delineation (Salix, November 2015) to contain 0.25 acre of non -wetland waters of the U.S. An additional 0.14 acre of waters of the U.S. is located offsite, but still within the same water body and in between segments of the on -site waters. This drainage feature flows roughly north to south, entering the site through six 48-inch culverts at the site's northern end and leaving the site through a single 72-inch culvert at its southern end. According to Salix, although it may have carried more substantial waters at one point, because of the surrounding development, it now only carries low flows during larger storm events. Because the entire 0.25 acre of on -site waters would be filled, the offsite waters would also be impacted due to their dependence on the upstream segment, for a total impact of 0.39 acre of non - wetland Waters of the U.S. The applicant has already obtained a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit on June 1, 2016, and no additional mitigation was required other than to comply with the terms of this permit. This includes, among other requirements, the need to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and, to purchase 0.39 acre of enhancement credits for riparian/riverine habitat from the Riverside -Corona Resource Conservation District in -lieu -fee program. The mitigation provided below will reduce the impacts to a less than significant status. 7) Prior to soil disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall consult with, and obtain a Jurisdictional Determination from, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and submit the results of the consultation and copy of the determination to the City. If the onsite ephemeral stream is deemed to be jurisdictional waters, activities that affect this waterway will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The project will also be required to obtain a water quality certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The applicant shall provide proof to the City that this process has concluded and all required permits have been obtained or were not required. 8) Prior to disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and submit the results of the consultation to the City. Impacts to the bed, bank, or channel of streams or ponds may require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602 Agreement) with the CDFW. The applicant shall provide proof to the City that this process has concluded and all requirements have been met. It should be further noted that the Project Applicant has already reached an agreement with the CDFW regarding the Streambed Alteration Agreement and is awaiting approval of the Project Entitlements prior to executing said agreement (see undated, Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification No. 1600-2016-0081-R6.) d) The project site has no direct connectivity to any natural habitats or open spaces, and it is unlikely to be used for any notable wildlife movements. The on -site drainage feature is restricted to the site and is cut off by development to the north and south. There are some small open spaces located across the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe railroad tracks to the northwest, across the cement -lined Day Creek channel to the west, and across 6th Street Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg156 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 23 Less Then Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporate Im act Im act to the southeast and southwest. Each of these areas are relatively small and somewhat isolated (with the exception of open habitat to the west, which is a part of a transmission line right-of-way). Development of the project site would not impact any of these areas, and because none of them has any direct connectivity to the site, development would not result in any substantial interference with wildlife movements. e) Per the Biological Resource Assessment (BRA), there is a small grove (1-acre) of non- native Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle) near the northwest corner of the project site, The applicant has indicated, based on a site visit following the preparation of the BRA, that the trees do not meet the definition of heritage tree as described in the Development Code. The trees do not exceed the minimum height of 30 feet and minimum circumference of 20 inches at breast height required to fulfill this definition. Therefore, there are no heritage trees on the project site and the proposed project is not in conflict with any local ordinance. No impact is expected. f) Neither the City nor the SOI are within an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved State Habitat Conservation Plan area. The project site is not located within a local conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Figure RC-1. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. No impact is expected. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () () (✓) significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () (✓) () ( ) significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological () (✓) () ( ) resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred () () () (✓) outside of dedicated cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). There will be no impact. b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project site; however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation, and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential archaeological resources. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Cultural Resources based on the future build out of the City. The following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented: 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg157 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 24 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Potentially Significant W,h Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Im ad Im act them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in -kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. On September 25. 2015, MIG Hogle-Ireland conducted a phase I cultural resources assessment of the Study Area to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources (including archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources) for the purpose of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the local cultural resource regulations. The scope of work for this assessment included a cultural resources records search through the California Historical Resources Information System -Eastern Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC), a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and follow-up Native American consultation, land use history research, a paleontological resources records search through the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM), a pedestrian survey, eligibility evaluations for resources identified within the Study Area, impact analyses, and the recommendation of additional work and mitigation measures. The cultural resources records search results from the South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCIC) indicated that there were no archaeological resources located within the Study Area and none were identified during the pedestrian survey. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. Despite the heavy disturbances of the Study Area that may have displaced archaeological resources on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources exist at depth. As a result, recommended mitigation measures are provided below to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. 2) Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who shall conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg158 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 25 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant wth Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incur crated Impact Im act commencement of excavation activities. The training session, shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event. The training session will include a Power Point presentation and/or handouts for all attendees. The basic topics to be addressed in the session include: a brief cultural and archaeological history of the area and the Applicant's and City's cultural resource compliance obligations; training in potential resources that may be encountered through the use of photographs or other illustrations; the duties of archaeological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps that would be followed to conduct a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 3) Cease Ground -Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, ground - disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 25 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts are determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals should be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. The landowner, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that archaeological material is recovered. 4) Monitor Construction Excavations Monitor Construction Excavations for Archeological Resources in Younger Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the direction and guidance of a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non -fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth -moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg159 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 26 Less Than signMeant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than significant No Im ac1 I ncorporated Impact Im act 5) Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. The archaeological monitor under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant and the South Central Costal Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. c) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the research performed at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Sphere -of - Influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity rating for paleontological resources. The older alluvium, which would have been deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, when the last "Ice Age" and the appearance of modern man occurred, may contain significant vertebrate fossils. The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium per the Public Safety Element of the General Plan; therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 6) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth -disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth -disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. The cultural resources assessment prepared by MIG Hogle-Ireland on September 25, 2015, indicates that no vertebrate fossil localities from the San Bernardino County Museum records have been previously recorded within the study area or within a one -mile radius. Additionally, MIG Hogle-Ireland identified no paleontological resources during the Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg160 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 27 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signifl.nt With Mitigation SiThan gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im act pedestrian survey. However, because these findings do not preclude the existence of undiscovered paleontological resources located below the ground surface and lacking surface manifestation, which may be encountered during construction excavations associated with the proposed project. As a result, the following mitigation measures are provided to reduce potential significant impacts to previously undiscovered paleontological resources and/or unique geological features that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. 7) Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session, shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in paleontology, will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event. The training session will include a Power Point presentation and/or handouts for all attendees. The basic topics to be addressed in the session include: a brief cultural and geologic history of the area and the City cultural resource compliance obligations; training in potential resources that may be encountered through the use of photographs or other illustrations; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps that would be followed to conduct a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 8) Monitor Construction Excavations for Paleontological Resources in Older Pleistocene Alluvial Deposits. The Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non -fill older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth -moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. 9) Cease Ground -Disturbing Activities and . Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological resources are encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground - disturbing activities, ground -disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 25 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with a Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg161 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 28 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Petentially wm Than Significant Mit aticn Significant No I Impact Incur crated Im acl Im act professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of taxonomic identification and catalogued and curated to a suitable museum or other repository with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Bernardino County Museum or Western Science Center. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository and/or school. 10) Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, City, the San Bernardino County Natural History Museum, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. d) The site is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26), The site is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. The site is highly disturbed and is utilized by off -road vehicles that have created numerous dirt -road tracks and berms. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No evidence is in place to suggest.the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on -site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State regulations is required for all development, no mitigation is required in the unlikely event human remains are discovered on -site. No adverse impacts are anticipated Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg162 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 29 Less Than Sign! ant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially significant Wth Mitigation Than Signifcanl No Im act Incur orated Im act Im ad 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as () () () (✓) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priclo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? () () () (✓) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including () () () (✓) liquefaction? iv) Landslides? () () () (✓) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? () (✓) () ( ) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, () () () (✓) or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table () () () (✓) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use () () () (✓) of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) No known faults pass through the site and it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault, according to the General Plan Figure PS-2, and Section 4.7 of the General Plan FPEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within 3 miles northwest of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 5.5 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0-7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is 17 miles northeasterly of the site, and the San Andreas Fault, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is about 19 miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code and Standard Conditions will ensure that geologic impacts are less -than -significant. b) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within a designated Soil Erosion Control Area Exhibit 4.7-4 of the General Plan FPEIR. The proposed project will require the excavation, stockpiling, and/or movement of on -site soils. The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg163 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 30 Less Than Signif ent Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wlh Tnan Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco prated Im act Im ad control; however, development of this project under the General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels: 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re -planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off - site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. c) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.7) indicates that there is a potential for the hillside areas at the northern end of the City and in the SOI for slope failure, landslides, and/or erosion. Areas subject to slope instability contain slopes of 30 percent or greater. Landslides may be induced by seismic activity, rain, or construction. The City Hillside Development Regulations prohibits the development within slopes of 30 percent or greater and limit the number of units that could be constructed within the Hillside Residential and Very Low Density Residential designations in the Hillside areas. The site is not within an Earthquake hazard zone or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-2. Soil types on -site consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand (TuB) Soil association according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The majority of Rancho. Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types on -site consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand (TuB) Soil association according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. These soils are typically stable. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. No impacts are anticipated. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or () (✓) () ( ) indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation () () (✓) ( ) adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg164 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 31 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Im act Comments: a) Regulations and Significance —The Federal government began studying the phenomenon of global warming as early as 1979 with the National Climate Protection Act (92 Stat. 601). In June of 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's Green House Gas (GHG) emissions reduction target in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The EO created goals to reduce GHG emissions for the State of California to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additionally, on December 7, 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued findings regarding GHGs under rule 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: (1) that GHGs endanger human health; and (2) that this will be the first steps to regulating GHGs through the Federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA defines 6 key GHGs (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)). The combined emissions of these well -mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to GHG pollution. The western states, including Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, already experience hotter, drier climates. California is a substantial contributor of GHGs and is expected to see an increase of 3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit (OF) over the next century. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the lead agency for implementing AB 32, determine what the statewide GHG emission level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit (427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent) to be achieved by 2020 and prepare a Scoping Plan to outline the main strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline. Significant progress can be made toward the 2020 goal through existing technologies and improving the efficiency of energy use. Other solutions would include improving the State's infrastructure, and transitioning to cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. The ARB estimates that 38 percent of the State's GHG emissions in 2004 was from transportation sources followed by electricity generation (both in -State and out -of -State) at 28 percent and industrial at 20 percent. Residential and commercial activities account for 9 percent, agricultural uses at 6 percent, high global warming potential gases at 3 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent. It is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change but that GHG emissions from the project would combine with emissions across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Therefore, consistent with the ARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan, the proposed project was evaluated for consistency with the Early Action Measures (Scoping Plan is a recommendation until adopted through normal rulemaking). The proposed project is assessed by determining its consistency with the 37 Recommended Actions identified by ARB. In compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 97 and CEQA, the project has been analyzed based on a qualitative analysis (CEQA 15064.4). Additionally, the ARB was directed through SB 375 to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved within the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. SCAQMD and ARB maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Basin. The stations closest to the project site are the Upland station and the Fontana -Arrow Highway station. The Upland station monitors all criteria pollutants except PMto, PM2.e, and SO2 Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg165 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 32 Less Than Signifcant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Signifant Wth Mitigation Than Significant No Im act neorporated Impact Im act which are monitored at the Fontana -Arrow Highway station. The ambient air quality in the project area for CO, NO2, and S02 are consistently below the relevant State and Federal standards (based on ARB and EPA from 2007. 2008, and 2009 readings). Ozone, PMto, and PM2.5 levels all exceed State and Federal standards regularly. Proiect Related Sources of GHG's — Based on the Guidelines for the Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G, a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community. However, neither the CEQA statutes, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines, nor the draft proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis. Significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has not adopted a threshold of significance for GHG emissions. However, a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is based upon South Coast Air Quality Management District staffs proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary sources emissions for non -industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD's Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Project related GHG's would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. Based on the Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment (MIG Hogle-Ireland, March 2015), total project related emissions would be 7,128.87 MTCO2eq/year, as shown in the following table: ' Greenhotise'Gas Emission§tnvento Source t " ,' GHG'Emi§sions (MTIYR)* , T0TAL*4. Construction^ 44.10 Operation 7,962.36 Total 8,006.46 MTCO2E/YR Note: Slight variations may occur due to rounding A Construction impacts amortized over 30-years Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment - (Table 15) (CalEEMod Output) MIG/Hogle-Ireland, March 2015 As shown in the table, direct and indirect operational emissions associated with the project as compared to the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance of 10,000 MTCO2e per year would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. Cumulative Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions — The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.5) indicates that GHG emissions result from construction activities associated with diesel -powered construction equipment and other combustion sources (i.e. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg166 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 33 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im act Generators, workers vehicles, material delivery, etc.). The GHG emitted by construction equipment is primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). The highest levels of construction related GHG's occur during site preparation including demolition, grading and excavation. Construction related GHG's are also emitted from off -site haul trucks and construction workers traveling to the job site. Exhaust emissions from construction activities would vary each day with the changes in construction activity on site. The combustion of fossil - based fuels creates GHG's such as CO2, Cho, and N20. CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. rucnse'Gas'Erti Consttion Geedissrons ny'[5 rYr" d f ? it,,.x„y,hoti Constructwn`Year tr k dGHG:Emissions'(MTIYR)*rs`,+ m (p,� 2016 1,022.11 2017 300.90 AMORTIZED TOTAL 44.10 * MTCO2E Note: Slight variations may occur due to rounding A Amortized over 30-years Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment - (Table 13) (CalEEMod Output) MIG/Hogle-Ireland, March 2015 Based on the Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment (MIG Hogle-Ireland, March 2015), no significant impacts to GHGs from short-term construction impacts would occur as a result of the project as shown in the table above. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. The proposed project would have less than a significant short-term cumulative impact with implementation of the following enforceable actions, which are included as mitigation measures in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 of the 2010 General Plan Update FPEIR: 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil -stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low -emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel -powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak -hour traffic. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg167 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 34 Less Than Significant Less Issues and SupportingInformation Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im aIX 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew. Cumulative Long Term (Operational) GHG's Emissions — The primary source of GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be from motor vehicles, combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, as well as off -site GHG emissions from generation of electricity consumed by the proposed land use development over a long term. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to review the project for "adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure," to determine potential impacts of GHG's. Therefore the project has been analyzed based on methodologies and information available to the City at the time this document was prepared. Estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that is a worst case with the understanding that technology changes may reduce GHG emissions in the future. To date, there is no established quantified GHG emission threshold. The project involves the construction of an industrial building of 339,000 square feet on a parcel of 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres) and therefore would result in an increase in the net increases of both stationary and mobile source emissions. The majority of energy consumption typically occurs during project operation (more than 80 percent and less than 20 percent during construction activities). The proposed project will incorporate several design features that are consistent with the California Office of the Attorney General's recommended measures to reduce GHG emission including: water efficient landscaping, shade trees, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks. The project is consistent with the California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team proposed early action measures to mitigate climate change included in the CARB Scoping Plan mandated under AB 32. The proposed project will incorporate several design features including: water efficient landscaping, shade trees, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks (list other if applicable). Additionally, the City is participating in the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) with SANBAG for the San Bernardino County area pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375. Operational Greenhouse"Gas�Emtssions A "15* GHG %Emtsstons (MT/YR)"t N4 S-tA�F .G, Area 0.02 Energy 4,874.13 Mobile — Off Site 1,688.67 Mobile — On Site 877.59 Solid Waste 140.46 Water/Wastewater 381.49 TOTAL 7962.36 * MTCO2ENR Note: Slight variations may occur due to rounding Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment - (Table 14) (CalEEMod Output) MIG/Hogle-Ireland, March 2015 Rev 3-1-16 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 35 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant Wth Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Incor orated Im act Im act Based on the Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment (MIG Hogle-Ireland, March 2015), no significant impacts to GHGs from long-term, operational impacts would occur as a result of the project as shown in the table above. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. The proposed project would have less than a significant long-term operational impact with implementation of the following enforceable actions, which are included as mitigation measures in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 of the 2010 General Plan Update FPEIR: 7) Construction and Building materials shall be produced and/or manufactured locally. Use "Green Building Materials" such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way including low -volatile -organic -compound (VOC) materials. 8) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of; Increased insulation. • Limit air leakage through the structure. • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances. • Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's) for outdoor lighting. 9) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following; • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available or as required by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and .appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non -vegetated surfaces. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg 169 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 36 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With With Than Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Im act 10) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. b) The project involves the construction of an industrial building of 339,000 square feet on a parcel of 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26). which is consistent with the General Plan. No other applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emission apply to the project. The 2010 General Plan Update includes adopted policies and Standard Conditions that respond to the Attorney General and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions guide infill and sustainable development reliant on pedestrian connections, re -use and rehabilitation of existing structures, link transportation opportunities, promote development that is sensitive to natural resources and incentivizes denser mixed use projects that maximizes diverse opportunities. The proposed project includes water efficient landscaping, shade trees, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks and therefore is consistent with the sustainability and climate change policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of GHG's and determined that GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable, which would be a significant, unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. Based on the Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment (MIG Hogle- Ireland, March 2015), no significant impacts to GHGs from short-term, construction impacts or long-term, operational impacts would occur as a result of the project. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the project's contribution to GHGs from short-term construction and long-term operational cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed in subsection a); less than significant impacts would occur as a result of the project. In addition, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction goals established by AB 32 and therefore would be less than a significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (✓) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (✓) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or () () () (✓) acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg170 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 37 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant Nc Im act Incorporated Impact Im act d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of () () () (✓) hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () () (✓) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () (✓) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an () () () (✓) adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of () () () (✓) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) Development within the City may utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. This is usually associated with individual households, small business operations, and maintenance activities like paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and motor oil or through construction activities that would use paints, solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease, and oils. These materials would be stored and used at individual sites. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the State. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements and is in the process of updating the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less -than -significant. The proposed industrial building is to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No adverse impacts are expected. b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the State. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements and is in the process of updating the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less -than -significant. The proposed industrial building is to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg171 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 38 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenfially Significant Wth Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Inmmp . ed Impact Im act determine the potential impacts to the surrounding uses. No adverse impacts are anticipated. c) There are no schools located within 1/4 mile of the project site. The nearest school is Perdew Elementary School at 13051 Miller Avenue located about 1.60 miles northeast of the project site. The proposed buildings are to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No impacts are anticipated. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Section 4.8.6 Threshold 4.8.d of the PEIR indicates the project site is not on an identified hazardous site. Furthermore, recent site inspections did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. e) The site is located within an airport land use plan according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1 and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 3.25 miles northeasterly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. The project is located within the Airspace Protection Area according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1. Development within this protection area will comply with FAR Part 77 regarding height limitations in order to prevent obstruction to aircraft operations. No impact is anticipated. There are no private airstrips within the City. The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 and 1/2 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. The proposed industrial development will be located on a site that is surrounded by undeveloped land. Adequate access will be provided as part of the project approval. The City's Emergency Operation Plan, which is updated every three years, includes. policies and procedures to be administered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from wind -driven fires in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone found in the northern part of the City; however, the proposed project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to General Plan Figure PS-1. No impact is anticipated. Rev 3-1-16 D6Pg172 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 39 Less Than Significant Less 1 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Pctentiany Significant cam Mitigation man Significant No Im act Incor crated Impact Im act 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ( ) (✓) () ( ) requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ( ) () () (✓) substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () () (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () () (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed () () () (✓) the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? () (✓) () ( ) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as () () () (✓) mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures () () () (✓) that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of () () () (✓) loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? () () () (✓) Comments: a) Water and sewer service is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). The project is designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The General Construction Permit treats any construction activity over 1 acre as an industrial activity, requiring a permit under the State's General NPDES permit. The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, administers these permits. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg173 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 40 Less Than Signifcanl Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotMially Signifcanl wan Mitigalicn man Signifcanl No Im act Inver orated Im act Im act Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity for new development or significant redevelopment. Prior to commencement of construction of a project, a discharger must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the General Permit. The General Permit requires all dischargers to comply with the following during construction activities, including site clearance and grading: Develop and implement a Storm Water would specify Best Management Practices from contacting storm water and with the from moving off -site into receiving waters. Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants intent of keeping all products of erosion Eliminate or reduce non -storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. Perform inspections of all BMPs. Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and construction project discharges. A construction project for new development or significant redevelopment requires an NPDES permit. Construction project proponents are required to prepare an SWPPP. To comply with the NPDES, the project's construction contractor will be required to prepare an SWPPP during construction activities, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post -construction operational management of storm water runoff. The applicant has submitted a WQMP, prepared by Huitt-Zollars (January 20, 2016), which identifies BMPs to minimize the amount of pollutants, such as eroded soils, entering the drainage system after construction. Runoff from driveways, roads and other impermeable surfaces must be controlled through an on -site drainage system. BMPs include both structural and non- structural control methods. Structural controls used to manage storm water pollutant levels include detention basins, oil/grit separators, and porous pavement. Non-structural controls focus on controlling pollutants at the source, generally through implementing erosion and sediment control plans, and various Business Plans that must be developed by any businesses that store and use hazardous materials. Practices such as periodic parking lot sweeping can substantially reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. The following mitigation measures are required to control additional storm water effluent: Construction Activities: 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on -site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on -site and off -site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg 174 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 41 Less Than Significant Less Issues and SupportingInformation Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Im act program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on -site or off -site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Post -Construction Operational: 6) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to reduce ,pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development, and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for,controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) According to CVWD, approximately 35 percent of the City's water is currently provided from water supplies coming from the underlying Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins. CVWD complies with its prescriptive water rights as managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster and will not deplete the local groundwater resource. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge because it is not within- an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Figure RC-3. Development of the site will require the grading and excavation, but would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 300 to 470 feet below the ground surface. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs but will not be a significant impact. CVWD has plans to meet this increased need to the year 2030. No impacts are anticipated. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg175 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 42 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant tvth Mitigation Tnan Significant No Impact Incor aratetl Im act Im acl c) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on the site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project design includes landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent erosion. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off -site. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off -site. No impacts are anticipated. Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is for new development; therefore, is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to minimize water pollution. With implementation of the mitigation measures specified under subsection a), less than significant impacts are anticipated. 8) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Huitt-Zollars (January 20, 2016), to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. g) No housing units are proposed with this project. No adverse impacts are expected. h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. No adverse impacts are expected. The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm ,drain system designed to adequately convey floodwaters from a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete -lined channels, and underground storm drains as shown in General Plan Figure PS-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. No adverse impacts are expected. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg176 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 43 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant WiT Miligagon Than Significant No Impact Inver orated Im acl Im act There are no oceans, lakes, or reservoirs near the project site; therefore impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the level of non -significance within the City. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? () () () (✓) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or () () () (✓) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan () () () (✓) or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26). The site is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east. property line of the site. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. The site will be developed with a logistics building that will be similar to other logistics buildings in the City. This project will be of similar design and size to surrounding industrial development to the south and west. The project will become a part of the larger existing industrial area. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project site land use designation is General Industrial. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection, or SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is for the construction of an industrial building of about 328,000 square feet on a parcel of about 696,465 square feet (15.99 acres). This project will be of similar design and size to surrounding industrial development. The development of the site will be consistent with the land use designations as described in the Development Code and General Plan. The minimum building, parking lot, and wall setbacks; dock and storage area screening; and landscape coverage are consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to General Plan Figure RC-4 and Section 4.10 of the General Plan Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg177 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 44 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources; Pclanliauy With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco oraletl Impact Im act FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral () () () (✓) resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important () (j () (✓) mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a) The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1; therefore, there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site; therefore, there is no impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in () (✓) () ( ) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive () () (✓) ( ) ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise () () (✓) ( ) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in () (✓) () ( ) ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () () (✓) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () (✓) would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The project site is not within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Figure PS-9 at build -out. The principal source of noise that would impact the project site is traffic. Generally, warehouse/distribution operations are not sensitive to Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg178 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 45 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Pctenliauy Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Impact Inca crated Impact Im ad noise impacts. The office use associated with such operations would be the most sensitive to noise impacts. However, due to the concrete wall construction of the buildings and the setbacks between the buildings and the street southerly property line, noise impacts will be less than significant. Noise from the site will most likely be generated by truck traffic and dock area activities — all other activities will be conducted within the buildings. Per the Noise Study prepared by MIG/Hogle-Ireland in March 2015, existing without and with project exterior noise levels will not exceed the 70 dBA CNEL standard [and] traffic noise levels at the proposed facility will not exceed the 70 dBA CNEL standard established by the City for Class A Industrial uses. In any event, the mitigation measures listed below will further reduce exterior noise levels to less -than -significant levels: 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a construction -related noise mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction. The measures listed under 12.d also will further reduce exterior and interior noise levels to less -than -significant levels. b) The proposed industrial building is to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. The City's Development Code requires that all industrial uses be conducted within an enclosed building; hence, no adverse operational impact to nearby uses is expected. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding uses. Per the Noise Study prepared by MIG/Hogle-Ireland in March 2015, vibration from use of heavy construction equipment for the proposed project would be below the thresholds to cause damage to nearby structures and result in barely perceptible vibration. The Noise Impact Analysis then goes on to state, Construction of the project does not require rock blasting, pile driving, or the use of a jack hammer, but will use a vibratory roller, small bulldozer, and loaded trucks. All of the receptors will experience barely perceptible vibration from construction of the proposed project. Furthermore, these construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays. With regard to long-term operational impacts, activities associated with the project will not result in any vibration -related impacts to adjacent or on -site properties. In any event, the measures listed under 12.d will further reduce exterior and interior noise levels to less -than -significant levels. c) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. Because the project will not significantly increase traffic as analyzed in Section 16 Transportation/Traffic; it will likely not increase ambient noise levels beyond a less than significant amount within the vicinity of the project. d) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.12) indicates that during a construction phase, on -site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg179 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 46 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Signifcant No Intact IncorEorated Im act Im act 2) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 3) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 4) Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible, or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 5) Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 6) Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 7) Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 8) Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on -site construction equipment but do not address the potential impacts because of the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then be required: 9) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the Rev 3-1-16 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 47 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: pP 9 Potentially Significant wtn Mitigation Than Significant No Impactt Inco crated Im act Im act developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The Project is located approximately 3.25 miles northeasterly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 1/2 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either () () () (✓) directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, () () () (✓) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating () () () (✓) the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. Once constructed, the proposed project will have a limited number of employees; hence, will not create a demand for additional housing as a majority of the employees will likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. No significant impacts are anticipated. b) The project site is vacant industrial land and therefore contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. c) The project site is vacant industrial land and therefore contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? () () () (✓) b) Police protection? () () () (✓) c) Schools? () () () (✓) iitrazc�dci D6 Pg181 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 48 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wth Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor orated Im act Im act d) Parks? () () () (✓) e) Other public facilities? () () () (✓) Comments: a) The site, located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26), would be served by Fire Station #174 located at 11297 Jersey Avenue approximately 1 mile from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project to lessen the future demand and impacts to fire services. No impacts are anticipated. b) Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. No impacts are anticipated. c) The site is in a developed area currently served by the Cucamonga, School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The project will be required to pay School Fees as prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of building permits. No impacts are anticipated. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is Garcia Park, which is located at 13150 Garcia Drive approximately 1.65 miles from the project site, The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service,. which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in, a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Cumulative development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase demand for library services. According to the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.14), there will be a projected increase in library space demand but with the implementation of standard conditions the increase in Library Services would be mitigated to less than significant impact. Additionally, the Paul A. Biane Library has an additional 14,000 square foot shell of vacant library space that is planned for future Library use. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Therefore no adverse impact is expected. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg182 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 49 Less Than Significant Leas Issues and Supporting Information S PP g Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Slgnilwnt No linia.d Incorporated Impact Inact 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ( ) ( ) () (✓) regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or () () () (✓) require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is Garcia Park, which is located at 13150 Garcia Drive approximately 1.65 miles from the project site. This project is not proposing any new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. b) See a) response above. 16. TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy () ( ) () (✓) establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management () () () (✓) program, including, but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including () () () (✓) either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature () () () (✓) (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? () () () (✓) f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs () () () (✓) regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg183 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 50 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially significant With Mitigation Than signifcanl No Impact Incorporated Impact Im act Comments: a) The proposed project is the construction of an industrial building of about 339,000 square feet. Per the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. on February 27, 2015, implementation of the proposed project will generate 712 vehicle trips daily, 48 of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 51 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.16), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume, or congestion at intersections. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards. In addition, the City has established a Transportation Development fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. No impacts are anticipated. b) Per the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. on February 27, 2015, implementation of the proposed project will generate 712 vehicle trips daily, 48 of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 51 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. In November 2004, San Bernardino County voters passed the Measure I extension which requires local jurisdictions to impose appropriate fees on development for their fair share toward regional transportation improvement projects. On May 18, 2005, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a Comprehensive Transportation Fee Schedule updating these development impact fees. As a result, the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency waived the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis reporting requirement. This project will be required, as a condition of approval, to pay the adopted transportation development fee prior to issuance of building permit. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. The project will not negatively impact the level of service standards on adjacent arterials. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. No impacts are anticipated. c) Located approximately 3.25 miles northeasterly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. The project is located within the Airspace Protection Area according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1. Development within this protection area will comply with FAR Part 77 regarding height limitations in order to prevent obstruction to aircraft operations. No impacts are anticipated. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards because of a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles during construction and upon completion of the project and will therefore not create an inadequate emergency access. The project is designed to include the extension of Santa Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg184 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 51 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant cam Mitigation Than Significant No Im act incorporated Impact Im act Anita Avenue, which will provide primary access to the site from the southerly perimeter. The project also include the addition of an emergency access road at the northwesterly corner of the site. No impacts are anticipated. The design of the project includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction including bicycle racks at the office area, preferential parking for car/vanpools, pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks, etc. No impacts are anticipated. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of () () () (✓) Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its () (✓) () ( ) discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Comments: a) The project site is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue. The project proposes to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet comprised of warehouse and office area for distribution purposes. The project site is comprised of three (3) vacant parcels with a combined area of approximately 17 acres. The site is approximately 880 feet (east to west) by approximately 594 feet (north to south). The site is vacant with limited vegetation and is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. A Cultural Resource Assessment was prepared by MIG Hogle Ireland in September26, 2015. The study was conducted to determine the potential for adverse impacts to any cultural resources that would result from the project. According to the study, the cultural resources records search results from the South Central Coastal Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg185 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 52 ,.as Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im aU Incorporated Im act Im as Information Center (CHRIS-SCIC) that there were no previously recorded historical resources within the Study Area or within a one -mile radius and no historical resources were identified during the pedestrian survey, therefore, no impact analysis of historical resources is necessary. Furthermore, the project site is not 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). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. b) In accordance with AB52, native communities were contacted to determine interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. The City was contacted via email on March 7, 2016, by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in reference to the Cultural Resource Assessment. A representative of San Manuel stated they have reviewed the report and concur with the report's findings and recommendations. The representative requested that in the event tribal cultural resources be uncovered during construction, that their office be notified for consultation. The City was also contacted (letter dated March 10, 2016) by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. They stated they do not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project encompasses. They requested that the appropriate consultation continue to take place between concerned tribes, project proponents, and local agencies. They also requested that approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project. The Soboba Band deferred to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians who are in closer proximity to the project. With the following mitigation measure below, impacts to the cultural resources will be less than significant. Although the Cultural Resource Assessment did not indicate that cultural resources were reordered within a '/z mile radius of the site and the field survey did not result in the discovery of any cultural resources, it is still possible that a tribal cultural resource could be discovered during the grading and construction of the site. With the following mitigation measure, which was provided in the Cultural Resource Assessment and reviewed by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indian's Cultural Resources Management Department, impacts to the tribal cultural resources will be less than significant. 1) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant/permitee shall contact the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department to coordinate tribal participation in the archaeological monitoring of the project. Tribal participants shall coordinate with the Project Archaeologist to ensure that tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground disturbances are identified, assessed and either protected in place or mitigated accordingly. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the () () () (✓) applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or () () () (✓) wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Rev 3-1-16 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 53 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information S PP g Sources: Potantially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Incorporate Im act Im act c) Require or result in the construction of new storm () () () (✓) water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the () () () (✓) project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment () () () (✓) provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted () () () (✓) capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and () () () (✓) regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-1 and RP4 treatment plants. The RP-1 capacity is sufficient to exceed the additional development within the western and southern areas of the City. The RP-4 treatment plant has a potential ultimate capacity of 28 mgd which is considered more than adequate to capacity to treat all increases in wastewater generation for buildout of the General Plan. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga arid RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. c) All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project is served by the CVWD water system. There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. No impacts are anticipated. Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg187 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 54 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP 9 Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Im act Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. No impacts are anticipated. g) This project complies with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the () (✓) () ( ) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually () () () (✓) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will () () () (✓) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The site is located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue (APNs: 0229-271-24, 25, and 26). The site is bound on the north by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail line. To the north beyond this railway is a vehicle storage yard and auction facility (Copart). To the east is a facility operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) while to the south and west are SCE corridors with associated power transmission lines and towers. To the south beyond the SCE corridor is an industrial office complex comprised of multiple buildings. There is an easement in favor of SCE along the south side of the site. This easement crosses the site from east to west and is about 40 feet and 160 feet in width. There is also an easement for a railroad spur located within the property to the east and aligned parallel to the east property line of the site. Per the Special -Status Plant Survey prepared by Salix in 2016, the site does not contain special -status plants. Therefore, the proposed project will not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plants. However, according to wildlife assessments and focused surveys prepared by Michael Baker International and Jericho Systems Incorporated in 2016, the site does contain Los Angeles Pocket Mouse and San Diego Black -Tailed Jackrabbit, which are both California Rev 3-1-16 E Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 55 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PP g Potentially Significant With Mitigation Than Significant No Im acl incorporated Im act Im acl Species of Special Concern. To offset the potential loss of the sensitive wildlife species, mitigation is provided in Section 4 (Biological Resources) above. Additionally, according to the Biological Resource Assessment prepared by Salix, within and outside of the defined CDFW 1602 jurisdiction there is an alluvial scrub plant community. The alluvial scrub community associated with the CDFW 1602 jurisdictional area occupies a 3.2-acre portion of the eastern half of the 17-acre project site. It is characterized by a few species of shrubs in a fairly sparse arrangement. The most common component of the alluvial scrub community is California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Other components include sandbar willow (Salix exigua), scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), pine goldenbush (Ericameria pinofolia), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and giant reed (Arundo donax). The willow component of this habitat type is a remnant of predevelopment times when more surface water flowed through the area and into the Day Creek drainage. It is possible that the presence of this species is supported by the availability of groundwater (many feet below the surface). Willows are phreatophytes, meaning they are deep rooted and may obtain their water from deep sources, and once established, can sustain existence even though surface waters are no longer available. This is likely the case with these willows as no other hydrophytic species occur in the study area. According to the applicant's biologist, Salix, these willows do not constitute a riparian condition and are merely a part of the alluvial scrub habitat. Based on a site visit in April of 2016, Salix also determined a total of .09 acre of Lepidospartum squamatum was present onsite. Of the 17-acre site, this represents one half of one percent cover of the site (0.5%). According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a presence of greater than 1% of this species would classify the community as scale broom scrub which has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3. Since the site contains less than 1% cover, the habitat is not considered scale broom scrub and its removal is considered less than significant. However, Mitigation provided in Section 4 (Biological Resources) above addresses the loss of alluvial scrub to further reduce the impacts. b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicant would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, The 2010 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental effects of build -out in the City and Sphere -of -Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change and Mineral Resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed -use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. c) Development of the site under the proposed land use change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction -related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant Rev 3-1-16 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 56 impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less -than -significant levels. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier PEIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices,,10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (T) (T) (T) General Plan FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020116, certified January 4, 1989) Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg 190 Initial Study for Design Review DRC2015-00797 (T) Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment MIG Hogle-Ireland, March 2016 (T) Bioligical Resource Assessment Salix Consulting, Inc., September 21, 2016 (T) Pase I Cultural Resource Assessment MIG Hogle-Ireland, December 10, 2015 (T) Noise Study MIG Hogle-Ireland, March 2015 (T) Traffic Impact Analysis Kunzman Associates, Inc., February 27, 2015 (T) Wetland Delineation Salix Consulting, Inc., November 2015 (T) Special -Status Plant Survey Salix Consulting, Inc., October 2016 (T) Scalebroom Scrub Cover Exhibit Salix Consulting, Inc., October 12, 2016 (T) Alluvial Scrub Jurisdiction Salix Consulting, Inc., October 18, 2016, (T) Top of Bank Letter and Exhibit Salix Consulting, Inc., July 12, 2016 (T) Department of the Army Nationwide Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1, 2016 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 57 Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg191 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Design Review DRC2015-00797 Page `e APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Applicant's Signature: / _ (/ �1,,/l( Date: _S Print Name and Title: Rev 3-1-16 D6 Pg 192 G MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: Design Review DRC2015-00797 Initial Study Prepared by: Dominick Perez Applicant: RGA Office of Architecture and Design Date: May 10, 2017 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring. Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the PD/BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 project proponent shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, a Coating Restriction Plan (CRP), consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines and a letter agreeing to include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts a requirement that the contractors adhere to the CRP. The CRP measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of City Building Director. These may include the following: That volatile organic compounds (VOC) of proposed architectural coatings not exceed zero grams per liter for interior and exterior applications. This measure shall conform to the performance standard that emissions of volatile organic compounds from application of interior or exterior coatings shall not exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The CRP shall specify use of High -Volume, Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns for application of coatings 2) All construction equipment shall be maintained PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per Page 1 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 3) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, PD/BO C Review of Plans C 2 the developer shall submit Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low -emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. 4) The construction contractor shall utilize SO C Review of Plans A/C 4 electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 5) The construction contractor shall ensure that BO C Review of Plans A/C 214 construction -grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use 6) All construction equipment shall be maintained PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 7) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance BO B Review of Plans A/C 2 standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 8) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high -volume, low pressure spray 9) All construction equipment shall comply with BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, Page 2 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on -site haul BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 roads. • Phase grading to prevent the BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the BO C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in BO C Review of Plans A 4 accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule BO C During Construction A 4 established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high BO C During Construction A 4 winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard BO C During Construction A 4 ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 10) The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During Construction A 4 soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCBj) daily to reduce Particulate Matter (PM,o) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 11) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by BO C During Construction A 4 SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 Page 3 of 23 H v ko M Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance emissions. Long Term Emissions and Impacts 12) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy BO C During Construction A 4 vehicles and shuttle services. 13) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during BO C During Construction A 4 off-peak hours. 14) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and BO C During Construction A 4 reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 15) Landscape with native and/or drought- BO C During Construction A 4 resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 16) Provide lighter color roofing and road BO C During Construction A 4 materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 17) Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous BO C During Construction A 4 Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV-MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. 18) All industrial and commercial facilities shall BO C Review of Plans A 4 post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 19) All industrial and commercial facilities shall pD C Review of Plans A/C 2/3 designate preferential parking for vanpools. 20) All industrial and commercial site tenants with pD C Review of Plans D 2/3 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 21) All industrial and commercial site tenants with PD C Review of Plans D 213 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. Page 4 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non -Compliance 22) All new development in the City of Rancho BO C/D Review of Plans C 2/4 Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. iSe'ctio�t'4�t�Biological Resources .� r �, "�� w y disturbance and/or issuance 1 Prior to an soil pp g Review of Report p 2 of a grading permit, a qualified and permitted biologist shall conduct trapping surveys on the project site. All captured LAPM shall be removed from the site and relocated to a suitable offsite location. The offsite location must be approved in advance by CDFW and the approval shall be submitted to the City. The City shall also receive a report documenting the results of this trapping and relocation effort, as well as the results of Mitigation Measure 2. 2) All suitable pocket mouse burrows shall be pp C Review of Plans A/C 214 flagged prior to construction, and a qualified and approved biological monitor shall be present during initial site construction in order to capture and relocate any remaining LAPM or other special -status animal species that are found on the project site. 3) Because of the loss of suitable LAPM habitat, pp C Review of Plans A/C 214 this habitat of 3.2 acres shall be mitigated at an offsite location at a 3:1 ratio. The applicant shall purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar alluvial scrub habitat within the watershed. All mitigation must be approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and in place prior to 0 Page 5 of 23 �n 14 V N Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance construction. 4) Prior to any ground disturbance of the site, a PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 current survey for Delhi Sands flower -loving fly must be completed by a permitted biologist following United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines. The survey and results shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If the survey is negative, development can proceed prior to the next survey season. If development has not proceeded by the next survey season, another survey will be required. If a survey is positive, the project proponent must obtain an incidental take permit or other take authorization from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service before proceeding with the development. 5) Prior to soil disturbance and/or issuance of a PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 grading permit, a preconstruction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted on the project site. A copy of the survey and results shall be submitted to the City upon completion. The survey shall conform to the most current official guidelines, currently the March 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If no owls are observed on the project site, construction may continue without any additional mitigation. If owls are found on the project site during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), CDFW shall be consulted to coordinate and establish suitable avoidance buffers, if necessary, until after the nesting has completed. If owls are found on the project site outside of the nesting season (September 1 through January 31), CDFW shall be consulted to coordinate the closure of active Page 6 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance burrows and the relocation of the on -site owls. 6) Prior to soil disturbance, vegetation removal PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 and issuance of a grading permit, a pre - construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. A copy of the survey and results shall be submitted to the City upon completion. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer is expanded to 500 feet. It is recommended that a biological monitor be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities can occur. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any confirmed nest sites (with no -disturbance buffers) during construction to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturb the birds and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. The nests shall be monitored until all nests have been abandoned (for non - Project related reasons) or the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are found on -site during this time period, construction activities Page 7 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance may continue as planned. 7) Prior to soil disturbance and/or issuance of a PD B Review of Plans B 2 grading permit, the applicant shall consult with, and obtain a Jurisdictional Determination from, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and submit the results of the consultation and copy of the determination to the City. If the onsite ephemeral stream is deemed to be jurisdictional waters, activities that affect this waterway will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The project will also be required to obtain a water quality certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The applicant shall provide proof to the City that this process has concluded and all required permits have been obtained or were not required. 8) Prior to disturbance and/or issuance of a PD B Review of Plans B 2 grading permit, the applicant shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and submit the results of the consultation to the City. Impacts to the bed, bank, or channel of streams or ponds may require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602 Agreement) with the CDFW. The applicant shall provide proof to the City that this process has concluded and all requirements have been met. ,Section 5> 'CulfUf.9FResources = `- >� a 0 Page 8 of 23 N O O v N O Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect PD/BO C Review of Report A/D 3/4 undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to PD/BO C Review of Report A/D 3/4 require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the PD/BO C Review of Report A/D 3/4 archaeological heritage of the area. Page 9 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with PD B/C Review of report A/D 2/4 Section 21083.2 Archeological resources of and plans during CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects construction on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archeological sites, capping or covering site with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in -kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources management PD C Review of Report A/D 3/4 report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 2) Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training PD/BO B/C During Construction A 4 for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who shall conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session, shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event. The training session will include a Power Point presentation and/or handouts for all attendees. The basic topics to be addressed in the session include: a brief cultural and archaeological history of the area and the Applicant's and City's cultural resource compliance obligations; training in potential resources that may be encountered Page 10 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance through the use of photographs or other illustrations; the duties of archaeological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps that would be followed to conduct a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 3) Cease Ground -Disturbing Activities and PD/BO C During Construction A 4 Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, ground - disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 25 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue., Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts are determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals should be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. The landowner, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that archaeological material is recovered. 0 Page 11 of 23 m N O W Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance 4) Monitor Construction Excavations Monitor BO B/C During Construction A 4 Construction Excavations for Archeological Resources in Younger Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the direction and guidance of a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non -fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth -moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. 5) Prepare Report Upon Completion of PD C Review of Report A/D 3/4 Monitoring Services. The archaeological monitor under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant and the South Central Costal Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources 0 v Page 12 of 23 N O A Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. 6) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or PD B Review of Report AID 4 animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained PD B Review of Report AID 4 and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth -disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area BO B/C Review of Report A/D 4 being cleared or graded, divert earth - disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all PD D Review of Report D 3 recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of PD D Review of Report D 3 Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum. v Page 13 of 23 N O 0 rn M N O Ql Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance 7) Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training PD/BO B/C During Construction A 4 for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session, shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in paleontology, will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event. The training session will include a Power Point presentation and/or handouts for all attendees. The basic topics to be addressed in the session include: a brief cultural and geologic history of the area and the City cultural resource compliance obligations; training in potential resources that may be encountered through the use of photographs or other illustrations; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps that would be followed to conduct a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 8) Monitor Construction Excavations for BO B/C During Construction A 4 Paleontological Resources in Older Pleistocene Alluvial Deposits. The Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non -fill older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Page 14 of 23 A v Un N O V Mitigation Measures No. I Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non -Compliance Multiple earth -moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. 9) Cease Ground -Disturbing Activities and PD/BO C During Construction A 4 Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological resources are encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, ground -disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 25 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for Page 15 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance initial processing. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of taxonomic identification and catalogued and curated to a suitable museum or other repository with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Bernardino County Museum or Western Science Center. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository and/or school. 10) Prepare Report Upon Completion of PD C Review of Report A/D 3/4 Monitoring Services. Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, City, the San Bernardino County Natural History Museum, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. �Sections6G Geology andSoils� -•` - - - _ - - 1) The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During Construction' A 4 soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re- planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept BO C During Construction A 4 according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PMio emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off -site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when BO I C During Construction 1 A 14 Page 16 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by BO C During Construction A 4 SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. Section 7, Gfeenhouse Gas:Emissions ` Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that BO C During Construction A 4 assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil -stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select BO C During Construction A 4 construction equipment based on low - emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more BO C During Construction A 4 than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be BO C During Construction A 4 utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel -powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to BO C During Construction A 4 interfere with peak -hour traffic. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be BO C During Construction A 4 supported and encouraged for construction crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG Emissions 7) Construction and Building materials shall be BO A During Construction C 2 produced and/or manufactured locally. Use "Green Building Materials" such as materials Page 17 of 23 .J •, Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance that are resource efficient, recycled, and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way including low -volatile -organic -compound (VOC) materials. 8) Design all buildings to exceed California BO C During Construction A 4 Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of: • Increased insulation. • Limit air leakage through the structure. • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances. • Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems . • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's) for outdoor lighting. 9) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation BO A During Construction C 2 strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available or as required by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and Page 18 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non -Compliance appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non -vegetated surfaces. 10) Reuse and recycle construction and CE A Review of Plans C 2 demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. Section'9 Hydfology and. Water Quality -- -' n .'fie mµL •M. .._... :.t ...--.. - '.. ,._ .. Construction Activities 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on -site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, BO B/C/D/ Review of Plans A/C 2/4 included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on -site and off -site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on -site or off - site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program 0 O1 Page 19 of 23 La N J 1 E Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance within a specified time frame. 3) During construction, temporary berms such BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) Prior to issuance of grading or paving BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Post -Construction Operational 6) Prior to issuance of building permits, the BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for BO B/C/D Review of Plans A/C 2/4 controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped Page 20 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Grading Activities 8) The developer shall implement the BMPs BO B/CID Review of Plans A/C 2/4 identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Huitt-Zollars (January 20, 2016), to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Sectioo�l2 Noise ax.- e. «...w .e-.....1 .. .. `4. '. "n ...�. `.:.:a+....i— . ♦ J".a ..+. .v. v—..yla:.. ru.a <� Y?" M "" - '- _ Exterior 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a PD/BO B Review of Plans CIA 4 construction -related noise mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction. Interior 2) Construction or grading shall not take place BO C During Construction A 4 between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 3) Construction or grading noise levels shall not BO C During Construction A 4 exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels Page 21 of 23 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date /Initials Non -Compliance exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 4) Stationary construction noise sources such as PO/BO C During Construction A 4/7 generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible, or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 5) Construction staging areas must be located PO/BO C During Construction A 417 as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 6) Throughout construction, the contractor shall PO/BO C During Construction A 4/7 ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 7) Idling equipment must be turned off when not PO/BO C During Construction A 4/7 in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 8) Equipment must be maintained so that PO/BO C During Construction A 4/7 vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. This mitigation measure Page 22 of 23 v N Ln Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non -Compliance may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 9) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place PO/BO C During Construction A 4/7 between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Section 17 +Tribal CulturatResources - 1) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the PD/BO B/C Prior to Construction A/B 2/4 applicant/permitee shall contact the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department to coordinate tribal participation in the archaeological monitoring of the project. Tribal participants shall coordinate with the Project Archaeologist to ensure that tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground disturbances are identified, assessed and either protected in place or mitigated accordingly. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Pei on ="„ ,w.,.. _... _. MonitoringFrequency ,;M6 cd;ofverlfication "`' ;. Sanctions __. CDD - Community Development Director or designee A -With Each New Development A - On -site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD - Planning Director or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 -Withhold Certificate of Occupancy SO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/ Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 5 - Revoke CUP 7 -Citation Page 23 of 23 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Design Review DRC2015-00797 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above -listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the Planning Director, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 EXHIBIT Y D6Pg216 Mitigation Monitoring Program Design Review DRC2015-00797 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring afterwritten notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. D6 Pg217 RESOLUTION NO. 17-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2015-00797, A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING OF 339,000 SQUARE FEET COMPRISED OF WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE AREA FOR DISTRIBUTION PURPOSES ON A 17-ACRE SITE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,100 FEET NORTH OF 6TH STREET AND 395 FEET NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0229-271-24, 25, AND 26 A. Recitals. 1. RGA Office of Architecture and Design filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2015-00797, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 25th day of May, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the request of staff, the review of the application was continued to a date unspecific. 3. On the 14th day of December, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the request of staff, the review of the application was continued to a date unspecific. 4. On the 28th day of June, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearings on May 25, 2016, December 14, 2016 and June 28, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located approximately 1,100 feet north of 6th Street and 395 feet north of the terminus of Santa Anita Avenue. The project site is comprised of 3 parcels, totaling approximately 17 acres in size. The site is approximately 880 feet (east to west) by approximately 594 feet (north to south) and slopes from north to south with an elevation change from 1,123 at the north to 1,114 at the south; and D6 Pg218 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 2 b. The abutting properties to the north of the subject site contain the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)/Metrolink rail line and Storage Yard and Auction Facility (Copart) and are located within the Heavy Industrial (HI) District; the properties to the east consists of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail Line and Southern California Edison (SCE) Facility that are located within the Heavy Industrial (HI) District; the properties to the south and west contain SCE Corridors with Power Transmission Lines and Towers and are located within the General Industrial (GI) District; and C. The applicant proposes to construct a logistics building with a floor area of 339,000 square feet. The building will consist of two (2) office areas (totaling 15,000 square feet), manufacturing (15,000 square feet) and warehousing (309,000 square feet). The offices will be located at the southwest and southeast corners of the building; and d. The site will contain a dock loading area, with 36 dock doors, that will be located on the south side of the building. There will be a trailer storage area with 36 trailer parking spaces located adjacent to the loading dock. The dock and trailer storage areas will be screened by a concrete tilt -up wall of 8 feet in height; and e. Per Chapter 2, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan of the General Plan, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the General Industrial land use category is 60 percent. As the proposed building will have a floor area of 339,000 square feet and the project site has an area of 696,465 square feet, the calculated FAR for the project will be approximately 48.67 percent. f. The building is required to have 188 passenger vehicle parking stalls; 190 parking stalls will be provided; and g. Landscape coverage is 15.4 percent (107,400 square feet); the minimum requirement is 10 percent (69,647 square feet) for this zoning district; and h. The building will be of concrete tilt -up construction, painted with a palette of colors. The building will have form liner textured concrete accents. The building will have secondary building materials consisting of blue reflective glass with anodized aluminum mullions. Clerestory reflective blue glass will be incorporated along the upper level of the south, west, and east elevations. i. The site is located south of and adjacent to the BNSF rail line. The Development Code requires properties which adjoin existing or proposed lead or spur lines to provide rail service access. Upon obtaining the current Industrial Track Guidelines from BNSF that specify standards for railway designs, the applicant's engineer was unable to meet the guidelines as the vertical curves and grade requirements necessary could not be achieved for this site. Staff received correspondence from BNSF Railway Co. indicating multiple issues with the suitability for rail service at this site. Due to the multiple noted engineering obstacles, including the lack of ability to meet current Industrial Track Guidelines, BNSF stated that it is very unlikely to be approved for rail service. Therefore, because of the multiple noted issues, the site will not be developed to incorporate rail service; and j. Primary access to the site will be provided via an extension of Santa Anita Avenue, an existing public street that currently terminates about 395 feet south of the southern property line of the project site. The extension will be approximately 510 feet in length, and will terminate with a D6 Pg219 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 3 cul-de-sac bulb. Three (3) driveways will be constructed for vehicle access to the property. The project includes the construction of a secondary, emergency access road. This road will connect the project site (at the northwest corner) to an existing road that was constructed as a condition of approval for an existing logistics building located about 815 feet to the west of the project site. Both the extension of Santa Anita Avenue and the emergency access road will cross through the aforementioned SCE properties/easements. The applicant has contacted SCE and is in the process of preparing the necessary access agreements; and k. In accordance with AB52, native communities were contacted to determine interest in engaging in consultation related to the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of the project. The City was contacted via email on March 7, 2016, by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in reference to the Cultural Resource Assessment. A representative of San Manuel stated they have reviewed the report and concur with the findings and recommendations with the addition of "should tribal cultural resources be uncovered during construction, their office be notified for consultation." The City was also contacted (letter dated March 10, 2016) by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians who stated they do not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project encompasses, but they requested that the appropriate consultation continue to take place between concerned tribes, project proponents, and local agencies. They also requested that approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project. The Soboba Band wishes to defer to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians who are in closer proximity to the project. Therefore, staff has included a mitigation that states, "Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant/permittee shall contact the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department to coordinate tribal participation in the archaeological monitoring of the project. Tribal participants shall coordinate with the Project Archaeologist to ensure that tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground disturbances are identified, assessed and either protected in place or mitigated accordingly." With this mitigation measure, impacts to the cultural resources will be less than significant; and I. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and was circulated on April 20, 2016. Comments were received on May 20, 2016 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding the Biological Resources section of the MND. The applicant and their biologists addressed CDFW's comments and revised the MND by adding one (1) new mitigation measure, modifying five (5) existing mitigation measures, and deleting one (1) previous mitigation measure; and m. The revised MND was recirculated on November 11, 2007. The City received three additional comment letters in response. Two letters were received from Lozeau Drury, LLP. on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) on December 8 and 13, 2016, and a third letter was received from Jeremiah George on behalf of South Coast Chapter of California Native Plant Society on December 14, 2016. The letters presented new concerns relating to the project's impacts to air quality and biological resources. In January 2017, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) contacted Staff by telephone and commented on the site's suitability as habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly (DSFF). The applicant responded to all of the comments, added a new mitigation measure to address impacts to the DSFF and one mitigation measure was modified to increase the area of habitat to be preserved to reduce the impacts to the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM). The revised MND was recirculated on May 22, 2017; and n. Based on the findings contained in the revised IS, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures (including the addition and/or modification of the mitigation D6 Pg220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 4 measures discussed above) related to aesthetics, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, agricultural resources, cultural resources, air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The IS was circulated in compliance with Article 6 (specifically Sections 15072, 15073, and 15074) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. No revisions were made to the project in response to the comments. The design of the proposed project remains the same as prior to receiving the comments that were received. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The proposal is to construct an industrial building of 339,000 square feet comprised of warehouse and office area for storage and distribution purposes. The underlying General Plan designation is General Industrial. The General Plan states that the General Industrial (GI) designation permits a wide range of industrial activities that include wholesale, storage and office uses. The proposed industrial building is designed for office/warehouse/storage uses and has a FloorArea Ratio (FAR) of 48.67 percent, below the maximum FAR of 60 percent specified within the General Plan; and The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The applicant proposes to construct an industrial building on a 17-acre site. The underlying General Plan designation is General Industrial and the site is located within the General Industrial (GI) District, which allows for the proposed development; and b. The proposed development is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development is designed to comply with all standards outlined in the Development Code, including, but not limited to, building and parking setbacks, floor area ratio, building height, parking, dock and storage area screening, landscape coverage and architecture; and C. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The potential land uses that would be associated with this project are consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The subject property as well as the properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned General Industrial (GI) District. Furthermore, all activities will take place within an enclosed building and will comply with related local, State and Federal requirements. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local D6 Pg221 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 5 CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Measures listed below incorporated herein. Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) Priorto issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, a Coating Restriction Plan (CRP), consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines and a letter agreeing to include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts a requirement that the contractors adhere to the CRP. The CRP measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of City Building Director. These may include the following: • That volatile organic compounds (VOC) of proposed architectural coatings not exceed zero grams per liter for interior and exterior applications. D6 Pg222 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 6 This measure shall conform to the performance standard that emissions of volatile organic compounds from application of interior or exterior coatings shall not exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The CRP shall specify use of High -Volume, Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns for application of coatings. 2) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 3) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 4) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 5) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction -grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 6) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per man ufactu rers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 7) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 8) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high -volume, low-pressure spray. 9) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on -site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. D6 Pg223 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 7 • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 10) The site shall be treated with water or other soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 11) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM�o emissions. 12) Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. 13) Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours. 14) Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 15) Landscape with native and/or drought -resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 16) Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 17) Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV- MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. 18) All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). D6 Pg224 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 8 19) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 20) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 21) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. 22) All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. Biological Resources 1) Prior to any soil disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, a qualified and permitted biologist shall conduct trapping surveys on the project site. All captured LAPM shall be removed from the site and relocated to a suitable offsite location. The offsite location must be approved in advance by CDFW and the approval shall be submitted to the City. The City shall also receive a report documenting the results of this trapping and relocation effort, as well as the results of Mitigation Measure #2 below. 2) All suitable pocket mouse burrows shall be flagged prior to construction, and a qualified and approved biological monitor shall be present during initial site construction in order to capture and relocate any remaining LAPM or other special -status animal species that are found on the project site. 3) Because of the loss of suitable LAPM habitat, this habitat of 3.2 acres shall be mitigated at an offsite location at a 3:1 ratio. The applicant shall purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar alluvial scrub habitat within the watershed. All mitigation must be approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and in place prior to construction. 4) Prior to any ground disturbance of the site, a current survey for Delhi Sands flower -loving fly must be completed by a permitted biologist following United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines. The survey and results shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If the survey is negative, development can proceed prior to the next survey season. If development has not proceeded by the next survey season, another survey will be required. If a survey is positive, the project proponent must obtain and incidental take permit or other take D6 Pg225 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 9 authorization from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service before proceeding with the development 5) Prior to soil disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, a preconstruction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted on the project site. A copy of the survey and results shall be submitted to the City upon completion. The survey shall conform to the most current official guidelines, currently the March 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If no owls are observed on the project site, construction may continue without any additional mitigation. If owls are found on the project site during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), CDFW shall be consulted to coordinate and establish suitable avoidance buffers, if necessary, until after the nesting has completed. If owls are found on the project site outside of the nesting season (September 1 through January 31), CDFW shall be consulted to coordinate the closure of active burrows and the relocation of the on -site owls. 6) Prior to soil disturbance, vegetation removal and issuance of a grading permit, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. A copy of the survey and results shall be submitted to the City upon completion. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer is expanded to 500 feet. It is recommended that a biological monitor be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities can occur. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any confirmed nest sites (with no - disturbance buffers) during construction to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturb the birds and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. The nests shall be monitored until all nests have been abandoned (for non -Project related reasons) or the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are found on -site during this time period, construction activities may continue as planned. 7) Prior to soil disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall consult with, and obtain a Jurisdictional Determination from, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and submit the results of the consultation and copy of the determination to the City. If the onsite ephemeral stream is deemed to be jurisdictional waters, activities that affect this waterway will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The project will also be required to obtain a water quality certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section D6 Pg226 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797— RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 10 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The applicant shall provide proof to the City that this process has concluded and all required permits have been obtained or were not required. 8) Prior to disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and submit the results of the consultation to the City. Impacts to the bed, bank, or channel of streams or ponds may require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602 Agreement) with the CDFW. The applicant shall provide proof to the City that this process has concluded and all requirements have been met. Cultural Resources 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique ' prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in -kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 2) Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who shall conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session, shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving D6 Pg227 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 11 activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event. The training session will include a Power Point presentation and/or handouts for all attendees. The basic topics to be addressed in the session include: a brief cultural and archaeological history of the area and the Applicant's and City's cultural resource compliance obligations; training in potential resources that may be encountered through the use of photographs or other illustrations; the duties of archaeological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps that would be followed to conduct a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 3) Cease Ground -Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, ground -disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 25 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts are determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals should be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. The landowner, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that archaeological material is recovered. 4) Monitor Construction Excavations Monitor Construction Excavations for Archeological Resources in Younger Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the direction and guidance of a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non -fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth - moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. 5) Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. The archaeological monitor under the direction of a qualified professional D6 Pg228 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 12 archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant and the South Central Costal Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. 6) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth -disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth -disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. 7) Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session, shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in paleontology, will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event. The training session will include a Power Point presentation and/or handouts for all attendees. The basic topics to be addressed in the session include: a brief cultural and geologic history of the area and the City cultural resource compliance obligations; training in potential resources that may be encountered through the use of photographs or other illustrations; the duties of D6 Pg229 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 13 paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps that would be followed to conduct a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 8) Monitor Construction Excavations for Paleontological Resources in Older Pleistocene Alluvial Deposits. The Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non -fill older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth -moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. 9) Cease Ground -Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological resources are encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, ground -disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 25 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of taxonomic identification and catalogued and curated to a suitable museum or other repository with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Bernardino County Museum or Western Science Center. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository and/or school. 10) Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report D6 Pg230 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 14 shall be submitted to the Applicant, City, the San Bernardino County Natural History Museum, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. Geology and Soils 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil -stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re -planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off -site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil -stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil -stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low -emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline - or diesel -powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak -hour traffic. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew. 7) Construction and Building materials shall be produced and/or manufactured locally. Use "Green Building Materials' such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled and manufactured in an D6 Pg231 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 15 environmentally friendly way including low -volatile -organic -compound (VOC) materials. 8) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of; • Increased insulation. • Limit air leakage through the structure. • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances. • Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's) for outdoor lighting. 9) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following; • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available ores required by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinalstwater heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non - vegetated surfaces. 10) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about recycling. Hydrology and Water Quality 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on -site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. D6 Pg232 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 16 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on -site and off -site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures ate minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on -site or off -site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NO]) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. 6) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 8) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Huitt-Zollars (January 20, 2016), to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. D6 Pg233 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 17 Noise 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a construction -related noise mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction. 2) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 3) Construction or grading, noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 4) Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible, or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 5) Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 6) Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 7) Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 8) Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. This mitigation measure may be D6 Pg234 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 — RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 18 periodically monitored by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee during routine inspections. 9) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Tribal Cultural Resources 1) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant/permitee shall contact the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department to coordinate tribal participation in the archaeological monitoring of the project. Tribal participants shall coordinate with the Project Archaeologist to ensure that tribal cultural resources that maybe encountered during ground disturbances are identified, assessed and either protected in place or mitigated accordingly. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June, 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: D6 Pg235 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.17-65 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00797 - RGA OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN June 28, 2017 Page 19 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: D6 Pg236 c6„ . Tj�wcxo Gucanrovcn Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. All Double Detector Checks (DOC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line -of -sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DOC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DOC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone to match the building. 2. All ground -mounted equipment, including utility boxes, transformers, and back -flow devices, shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on- center. All ground -mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed otherwise by the Fire Department. 3. Each employee break area shall have a minimum size of 500 square feet, seating for at least 10% of the anticipated workforce, and an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on center with minimum dimensions of 4 inches by 12 inches. Each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural design and finishes/trim used on the building. The trellis shall be painted to match the building, and tables, chairs/benches, and waste receptacles shall be provided. 4. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. 5. All walls,. including retaining walls, exposed to public view . shall be constructed of decorative masonry blocks, i.e. slump stone, split -face, or have a decorative finish that is compatible with the primary building onsite. 6. Fences and gates approved for screening purposes in Industrial or Commercial Districts shall be metal, tubular steel, or wrought iron (open fencing shall be backed by solid or perforated metal sheeting painted to match the fence or gate). 7. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. S. The output surface (face) of all lamp heads on wall -mounted light fixtures and the light standards shall be parallel to the ground in order to eliminate glare and minimize lighting on adjacent properties. The maximum height of light standards, including the base, measured from the finished surface is 25 feet. 9. All materials, supplies, equipment, and operating trucks shall be stored within an enclosed building or area screened from public view. Pdnted: 6/15/2017 wewv.CityofRC.us D6 Pg237 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Location: Project Type: Review 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 10. The outdoor furniture shall be provided in the outdoor employee break areas. All outdoor furniture (tables, benches, trash receptacles, bollards, etc.) shall be permanent, uniform, and of durable materials. 11. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided at a rate equivalent to 5 percent of all required motorized vehicle parking, with a minimum of one rack with a capacity for two bicycles. Standard Conditions of Approval 12. For multi -family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on -site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 13. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development. 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 15. A minimum of 20 percent of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30 percent within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 16. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 17. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 18. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 19. For commercial and industrial projects, all doors (roll -up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. 20. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. Panted: 611512017 ww ZtyofRC.uS Page 2 of 14 D6 Pg238 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 21. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 22. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 23. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 24. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,260.25. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 25. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 26. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 27. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 28. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions and environmental mitigations contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 611512017 Page 3 of 14 D6 Pg239 Project #: DRC2016-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 29. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 30. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 31. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 32.Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 33. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 34. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 35. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet. 36. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 37. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 38. Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right--of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the 25-foot setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 39. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Printed: 6/15/2017 w .GlyofRC.us Page 4 of 14 D6 Pg240 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 40. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the Planning Director in the amount of $729 prior to the issuance of Building Permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The following impact fees shall be paid upon issuance of building permit (fees subject to change annually): a. Transportation Fee (Warehouse) $ 4,501.00 per 1,000 SF b. Transportation Fee (Office) $ 10,802.00 per 1,000 SF c. Police Impact Fee (Industrial) $ 48.00 per 1000 SF d. Police Impact Fee (Office) $ 127.00 per 1000 SF e. General City Drainage Fee $ 20,061.00 per net acre 2. Santa Anita Avenue frontage improvements to be in accordance with City 'Industrial Collector" standards as required and including: a. Provide curb and gutter, sidewalk, signing and striping as required. b. Install 9500 Lumens, HPSV-equivalent LED streetlights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide SCE power on City owned street lights. c. Minimum driveway approach widths to be in accordance with the City Driveway Policy. d. Proposed gates to be in accordance with the City Driveway Policy for stacking distances. 3. Street improvement plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Alternatively, a revision can be made to existing street improvement plans Drawing Number 1924 Sheet Nos. 1 and 5, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. www.City0 RC.us PnnleC: 6n 5/2077 Page 6 of ib D6 Pg241 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 4. Obtain the following from Southern California Edison Company: a. Agreement regarding street right-of-way necessary to extend Santa Anita Avenue. b. Agreement regarding street lights shown within said street right-of-way. C. A 26-foot minimum width emergency access easement from the northwest corner of this development to the Flood Control District right-of-way and bridge. 5. The storm drain serving this development within Santa Anita Avenue shall be private, the limits of the private portion shall be as determined by the City Engineer. A manhole shall be installed at the private/public transition of the storm drain. Developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement declaring the maintenance responsibility of the private portion. 6. The property owner and successors in -interest shall be responsible to fulfill all obligations of the Southern California Edison easement terms and conditions for the Santa Anita Street right-of-way. 7. Obtain appropriate right of entry and permits for property owner of the offsite emergency access at the northwest corner of this development. Standard Conditions of Approval 8. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be. paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited. Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a deposit reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the deposit amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site, www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs. 10. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to Building Permit issuance. Panted: 6/16/2077 vrvw.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 14 D6 Pg242 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 11. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 12. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 13. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Santa Anita Avenue Curb & Gutter A.C. Pavement Sidewalk Drive Approach Street Lights Street Trees 14. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of Building Permits. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 15. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 16. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 66 total feet on Santa Anita Avenue 17. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the building permit will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 18. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of Building Permits. w .CityofRC.us Printed: 6/1512017 Page 7 of 14 D6 Pg243 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 19. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the.City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 20. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Pnnled: 6/16/2017 vavw.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 14 D6 Pg244 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 21.Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet _ (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Santa Anita Avenue Botanical Name - Brachychiton populneus Common Name - Bottle Tree Min. Grow Space - 6' Spacing - 35' Size - 15 gallon Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 22. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP's). 2. The permitted grading and drainage plans shall show driveway and access road centerline profiles on each side of Santa Anita Avenue for access to the Southern California Edison and the MWD right-of-ways and easements. 3. The proposed public street, Santa Anita Avenue, shall comply with the current adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewers System (MS4) Permit and shall have and storm water flows treated to the maximum extent practicable using low impact development (LID) principles. PnnteA: 6/16/2017 wwv/.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 14 D6 Pg245 Project A DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Location: Project Type: Review 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 4. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) shall approve all plans that impact their easement, including utilities, storm drain, slopes, and street trees and landscaping prior to issuance of a grading permit. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring Metropolitan Water District Operations Maintenance Branch to be notified two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of their easement. Copies of all comments and letters from MWD shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. 5. A permit shall be obtained from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for any work within their right-of-way, including grading prior to issuance of a grading permit. Copies of all comments and letters / permits from MWD shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. 6. The applicant shall obtain written comments from MWD regarding site design restrictions within their easement and provide a copy of said comments to the Building and Safety Official for review. Copies of all comments and letters from MWD shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. 7. Prior to the start of landscaping operations, the landscape architect and the landscape contractor shall provide a sample of the weed fabric barrier to the Project Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The weed barrier shall be permeable. 8. Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". 9. DESIGN ISSUE: The plan view of the conceptual grading and drainage plan along with the associated sections along the north and west boundaries shows that existing off -site storm water will flow onto the project site. These off -site storm waters will comingle with the on -site storm water which will require treatment. As storm waters comingle the drainage area boundary shall be extended off -site to include all off -site flows which comingle with the storm waters which shall be treated. The civil engineer of record shall show these off -site drainage area boundaries on the preliminary water quality management plan. As a condition of approval of the project the final project -specific water quality management plan shall include within the Drainage Area all off -site storm water flows which directly flow onto the project site, and these off -site storm water flows which comingle with the on -site storm water flows shall be treated with the on -site storm water flows. 10. The conceptual grading and drainage plan and the accompanying cut -fill map show many areas where grading is required outside the property limits of the project onto the adjacent properties. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide signed and notarized letters and/or recorded easements from the adjacent property owners providing permission to allow grading and construction activities on their property or properties. These signed and notarized letters shall be scanned and pasted onto the grading plans. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. Printed: 6115/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 o(14 D6 Pg246 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official. 13. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 14. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 15. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre -grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over -excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 16. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) best management practices (BMP) devices. 17. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 18. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of "Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet" located in Appendix D "Section VII — Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, ..." of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. 19. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 20. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. Printed: 6/15/2017 www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 14 D6 Pg247 Project#: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Fill ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the "Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP" section of the final project -specific water quality management plan. 22. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 23. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 24. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 25. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 26.If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 27. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on -site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 28.It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 29. The Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 30. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible, and provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 32. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. Printed: 6/15/2017 w .CityofRC.uS Page 12 of 14 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 34. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 35. The applicant shall provide a copy of EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) with the Facility ID Number assigned to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. This form shall be scanned and pasted onto the final project -specific water quality management plan's Site and Drainage Plan. 36. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP"s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 37. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent 38. Southern California Edison (SCE) shall approve all plans that impact their easement, including utilities, storm drain, slopes, and street trees and landscaping prior to issuance of a grading permit. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring Southern California Edison Operations Branch to be notified two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of their easement. Copies of all comments and letters from SCE shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. 39. A permit shall be obtained from Southern California Edison (SCE) for any work within their right-of-way, including grading prior to issuance of a grading permit. Copies of all comments and letters / permit from SCE shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. 40. The applicant shall obtain written comments from Southern California Edison (SCE) regarding site design restrictions within their easement and provide a copy of said comments to the Building and Safety Official for review. Copies of all comments and letters from SCE shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. 41. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 42. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan, the inlet(s) and the outlet(s) for the structural storm water treatment device referred to as "Underground Infiltration System" on the preliminary water quality management plan, shall be spaced at least 100-feet apart. Printed: 6(15/2017 www.CityofRC.us page 13 of 14 D6 Pg249 Project #: DRC2015-00797 DRC2016-00318, LLA2016-00008 Project Name: Design Review Location: 8889 SANTA ANITA AVE - 022927124-0000 Project Type: Design Review Lot Line Adjustment, Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard conditions of Approval 43. Prior to issuance Number (WDID). document. of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan www.cityofRC.us Printed: 6/15/2017 Page 14 of 14 D6 Pg250 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 28, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Plan INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 - JUNG & JUEN, LLP - An appeal of a City Planner decision approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2016- 00021 to operate a drive-thru coffee shop, and Minor Exception DRC2016- 00022 to reduce the required on -site parking to allow additional food uses related to the prior approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00464 for a 6,484 square foot addition to the Haven Village Commercial Center located in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue -APN: 201-272-23. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 — Existing Facilities - which covers the operation, permitting and leasing of existing structures and as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — which covers exceptions in land use limitations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the City Planner's decision to approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2016- 00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 through the attached Resolutions of approval and Standard Conditions. PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00464 for the expansion of the Haven Village Commercial Center on January29, 2009. The approval was for the construction of two multi -tenant retail buildings totaling 6,484 square feet, along with one drive-thru lane. A Condition of Approval for the project required the filing of a Conditional Use Permit and submission of a drive-thru stacking study for use of the drive-thru lane when the final tenant was known in order to verify that there was adequate vehicle stacking in the drive-thru lane for the proposed use. On May 9, 2017, the City Planner approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 for the operation of an approximately 1,802 square foot drive-thru coffee shop within the 6,484 square foot expansion area at the Haven Village Commercial Center. The City Planner also approved Minor Exception DRC2016-00022, to reduce the required number of parking spaces in order to permit a total of 4,340 square feet of food uses (restaurants) within the 6,484 square foot expansion area at the Haven Village Commercial Center. On May 22, 2017, staff received a letter from the law offices of Jung and Yuen, LLP, appealing the City Planner approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022. The appeal is on behalf of the owners of the building within the Haven Village Center occupied by Trader Joe's and Daiso (Thakor I. Patel and Kusum T. Patel). In the appeal letter, the applicant's attorney, Roger Yuen, raises the following concerns: D7 Pg 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28, 2017 Page 2 The City should not have granted a Minor Exception to approve a reduction in the required parking without consent from the other property owners within the center. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) governing the center require consent from all of the property owners within the center prior to submitting an application to the City requesting a reduction in the required parking and that the City cannot interfere with the contractual rights between the property owners. 2. The approval of the Minor Exception to reduce the required parking to allow additional parking within the center will negatively impact the number of available parking spaces for the current tenants, Trader Joe's and Daiso, who have expressed concerns about the lack of available parking and may choose to not exercise their option to extend their leases. 3. The parking study submitted to justify the Minor Exception for reduced parking relied on the availability of parking spaces used by Trader Joe's and Daiso and that these tenants will bear the brunt of any parking shortage in the center. 4. The mitigation measures required in the approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Exception do not specify the number of golf carts to be used within the center to shuttle employees to Parking Zone 5 (behind the building) or who will pay for the cost of their operation. ANALYSIS: Approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 were based on the following analysis (also see Exhibit A — CUP and ME approval letter dated May 9, 2017). Haven Village Parking Overview: The Haven Village Commercial Center is located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue. The center is made up of multiple buildings totaling 118,264 square feet on multiple parcels of land, with the parking and access shared between all of the parcels within the center, pursuant to a reciprocal parking arrangement. The center currently includes 575 parking spaces, which is a 12 parking space (2 percent) deficient of the 587 required parking spaces, based on the current tenant makeup in the center. Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Commercial Center Neighborhood Neighborhood Commercial Commercial (NC) North Single -Family Residences Low Medium Low Medium (LM) South 210 Freeway East Multi -family Residences Medium High Medium High (MH) Commercial Uses Office and Office Professional and West Neighborhood Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Parking Requirement for Existing Center: The required parking for commercial centers between 25,000 and 599,000 square feet in size and built prior to 1988 is 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. The parking ratio for commercial centers includes up to 15 percent food uses and 10 percent office uses. Required parking for food uses over 15 percent of total gross leasable area in the commercial center is 1 parking space per 100 square feet of gross leasable area. The current tenant makeup of the Haven Village Commercial Center includes 19.7 D7 Pg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28,2017 Page 3 percent of food related uses (restaurants) and 8.1 percent of office space. The center has a 12 parking space (2 percent) deficit prior to considering the new expansion area. Table 2 below provides a breakdown of the existing parking conditions within the Haven Village Commercial Center. Table 2 — Existing Conditions Parking Analysis Summary Existing Conditions Parking Ana"is Summary Existing Conditions Required Parking Stalls Existing Conditions Basic Required Parking Stalls. Total Existing 1-Uvc-i :+'illage SF I is 2d4 Required Parking Stalls 11, DDD SF Basic Rate q 5,, Total Basic Rate Required Parking Stalls 532 Existing Conditions Required Excess Restaurant Square Footage Parking Stalls Haven Village Existing Restaurant SF 23.252 Total Existing Haven Village SF 118,2434 Haven Village 15% Restaurant SF Lint 17 74,E Excess Haven Vaage 15% Restaurant SF Limit 5,512 Add'I staIW1000 Excess Restaurant SF Rate 10.00 Addition Required Restaurant Parking Stalls 55 -'� ; rireJ E::i;ui rl-r�:;!:.,ns Fr��k❑ "_::,r i 1.: 587 J Existing A', oil..,b It Nyv e i i'J i IiayI a Ptirk ing Sill is y75 Existing Conditions Haven Village Parking Stalls Difference f2 Deficiem Parking Requirement for Expansion Area: The new addition to the Haven Village Commercial Center totals 6,484 square feet in two adjacent buildings located at the southwest corner of the center. The required parking for the addition was calculated at 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (the current Development Code parking requirement for centers between 25,000 and 599,000 square feet). The required parking for the 6,484 square foot expansion area is 32 parking spaces if 100 percent of the expansion area is occupied by retail tenants. The expansion area includes 38 new parking spaces, 6 spaces over the minimum requirement under the retail use scenario (Table 6). These 6 excess parking spaces reduce the overall 12 parking space deficit in the center to a deficit of 6 parking spaces (1 percent). Table 6 — Proposed Expansion Conditions Parkina Analvsis Summary Proposed Expansion Parking Addition Analysis Summary Proposed Expansion Conditions Required Parking Stalls Resturanl Retail Total Proposed Expansion SF 6,464 _ - _ Required Parldng Stalls I1,000 SF Rate MO W, Total Proposed Expansion Conditions Required Parking Stalls Fb 72 Proposed Expansion Conditions (lumber of Parking Stalls yg Haven Village Parking Stall Difference 271[leficient 6Surplus D7 Pg 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28, 2017 Page 4 If the expansion area is occupied by 100 percent food uses (10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area), the parking requirement for the expansion area would be 65 parking spaces and the parking deficit would be 39 parking spaces (6 percent) for the entire center (including the 38 new parking spaces in the expansion area) (see Table 7). The Minor Exception was issued to reduce the total number of required parking spaces in order to accommodate the additional restaurant uses. Total Parking Requirement including Expansion Area: The Haven Village Commercial Center will have 124,748 square feet of gross leasable area with the inclusion of the 6,484 square foot expansion area. Based on the existing center (118,264 square feet) being parked at the base 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area and the addition (6,484 square feet) being parked at the base 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area, the center is required to provide 619 parking spaces and will provide 613, or a deficit of 6 parking spaces based on the expansion area being 100 percent retail (1 percent deficiency). If the addition (6,484 square feet) is calculated at 100 percent food uses, the center would require 652 parking spaces, or a 39 parking space deficit (6 percent deficit) (see Table 7). Table 7 — Proposed Expansion, Parking Variance Analysis Summary Nopc>sedl Expansion Parking Variance Analysis Summary Required Kivt-n Village Parking Stalls Existing Cc:rritcrs R:quired Fw rg Stalls 5,57 Proposed Expansion Conditions Required Parking Stall:. 65 Haven Village Required Parking Stags Grand Total with Proposed Expansion Available Haven Village Parking Stalls 652 Existhig CondWons Available FbrWg Stalls 575 Proposed Expansion Conditions Available Parking Stalls 38 Haven Village Available Parking Stalls Grand Total with Proposed Expansion 613 Raven Village Parking Stall Differenr_e 39 Deficient 6%Deficient� Haven Village Parking Count: A Parking and Circulation Analysis (Advantec Consulting Engineers, March 2017) was submitted reviewing the available on -site parking within the Haven Village Commercial Center. Advantac conducted field counts of the available parking within the center between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Friday February 24, 2017, Saturday, February 25, 2017 and Tuesday February 28, 2017. Parking utilization counts were taken at 15 minute intervals. The Haven Village parking lot was divided into 5 parking zones for the purposes of the study, with Zones 3, 4 and a portion of 5 closest to the new expansion area. The parking study included the new parking spaces within the expansion area. D7 Pg 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28, 2017 Page 5 Haven Avenue The parking study found that, under the current baseline, in no parking zone did the number of open parking stalls fall below 10 percent. The highest parking utilization was on Saturday in Zone 1 (in front of Von's market), with a 10 percent parking buffer at 2:00 p.m. and on Saturday in Zone 3 (generally in front of Daiso/Corkys), with a 14 percent parking buffer at 11:00 a.m. The parking study included a second set of parking utilization tables which added the theoretical utilization of 65 parking spaces required by the expansion area if the 6,484 square foot expansion area was occupied by 100 percent food uses. The 65 additional parking space utilization was only added to Zones 3, 4 and 5. The second set of parking utilization tables show that at no time did the available parking fall below a 10 percent available parking space buffer. To reduce parking demand in the more heavily used area in front of the buildings, the study recommends that the center employ a parking attendant who shuttles employees within the center to the back of the buildings (Zone 5). If only Zones 3 and 4 were utilized to capture any overflow parking from the expansion area, available parking theoretically may fall slightly below 10 percent. For this reason, staff only supported 4,340 gross square feet of food uses in the expansion area of the total 6,484 square feet of available tenant lease area, which translates into a 4.5 percent reduction (27 stalls) in the required parking for the entire center (including the expansion area). In reviewing the approval letter dated May 9, 2017, for the approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022, staff discovered a discrepancy in the stated parking deficit when calculating the 6,484 square foot expansion area as 100 percent food use. The parking deficit was stated as 10 percent, where the actual deficit is 6 percent, and the deficit when considering 4,340 square feet of food use is 4.5 percent rather than 6 percent. Drive-thru Lane Stacking: The submitted Parking and Circulation Analysis (Advantec Consulting Engineers; March 2017) utilizes the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers; Trip Generation Manuel, 9th Edition) Land Use Code 937 (Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Thru Lane) to determine D7 Pg 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28, 2017 Page 6 that the proposed coffee shop with drive-thru lane will generate approximately 89 trips per hour, of which approximately 50 percent would utilize the drive-thru lane and 50 percent would park and walk into the business. Each vehicle is estimated to take 10 minutes to serve, translating into approximately 9 vehicles arriving at the coffee shop during the busiest times of the day of which approximately 4 vehicles will use the drive-thru lane. A 4-vehicle queue would require an 80-foot drive-thru lane, which is the proposed length of the drive-thru lane. The analysis concludes that the drive-thru lane is of adequate length to meet the peak hour demand of a drive-thru coffee shop. Public Notification: Public notification of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022, was sent to all property owners within 660 feet of the Haven Village Commercial Center on April 12, 2016 and April 27, 2016, respectively. Staff received a number of communications from an attorney representing one of the property owners of a commercial building within the Haven Village Commercial Center (APN: 0201-272-07). This property owner was concerned that the request to reduce the required parking will negatively impact available parking for his building within the center and will only support a parking reduction to allow for the drive-thru coffee shop and' not any additional food uses. While staff understands that an adjacent property owner has concerns about parking availability in the center, staff approved 4,340 square feet of food uses in the 6,484 square foot expansion area based on the analysis in the Parking Study and the findings in the following Minor Exception section. With the additional 4,340 square feet of food uses, the parking reduction will be 4.5 percent of the overall parking requirement for the Haven Village Commercial Center as a whole and will not reduce the available parking in any zone to less than 10 percent. A. Parking Minor Exception: The findings of facts below support the necessary findings, which are required by the City's Development Code: 1. Fact: The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. Finding: The proposed reduction in the required parking to allow additional food uses within the Haven Village Commercial Center site is consistent with the General Plan, which is intended that the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation provide for small- scale shopping centers located within residential neighborhoods. It also allows for the reduction of the required parking up to 25 percent through the approval of a Minor Exception when it can be supported by a parking study and the findings discussed here. The parking study (Advantec Consulting Engineers; March 2017) submitted to justify the. parking reduction concludes that there will be adequate parking within the center with the proposed additional food uses. 2. Fact: The proposed Minor Exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. Finding: The parking study submitted to justify the Minor Exception to reduce the required number of on -site parking spaces within the Haven Village Commercial Center concludes that there will continue to be adequate parking with the additional food uses and that the reduction is compatible with the other land uses in the area. According to the study, a ten percent buffer of parking spaces will be available even with the additional food uses. 3. Fact: The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to am. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28, 2017 Page 7 allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. Finding: The Minor Exception to allow additional food uses within the Haven Village Commercial Center will provide the property owner greater flexibility in leasing the new tenant spaces within the approved expansion area without negatively impacting the other tenants within the existing center. Conditions of Approval have been included to address employee parking, short term parking and the monitoring of the parking lot to help reduce overall parking demand. 4. Fact: The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious properties or improvements in the vicinity. Finding: It is common practice to grant a Minor Exception to reduce the required on -site parking where a parking study demonstrates that there will continue to be adequate parking within the project area. The submitted parking study concludes that there will continue to be an adequate number of parking spaces for all the tenants within the commercial center with the additional food uses and that the parking reduction will not negatively impact the surrounding property owners. Special conditions of approval have been added to this approval to future reduce any potential parking conflicts in the center. As a shopping center is governed by a reciprocal parking easement, each parcel within the shopping center may utilize parking spaces within the shopping center as a whole. Although some parking zones within the shopping center will experience slightly higher parking demand after the additional food uses are added, the shopping center as a whole will maintain an adequate parking supply. According to the study, all zones will continue to have an adequate parking buffer of at least ten percent. Accordingly, no single parcel within the shopping center will receive the benefit of a special privilege as a result of the minor exception. B. Applicant Response to Appeal: Mr. Donovan Collier, the attorney representing the applicant for Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022, has submitted a letter responding to the applicant's appeal (Exhibit, D). In the letter, Mr. Collier states that CC&Rs are akin to a private contract between two or more parties and apply solely to the contracting parties and not to unrelated third parties. The City is not required to consider or enforce the CC&Rs when considering an application for a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Exception, as the City is not a party to the CC&Rs. The land use approval by the City is rather governed by the terms of State and local law and any potential violations of the CC&Rs is a civil matter between the contracting parties. Mr. Collier further states that appellant's assertion that Parcel 2 (Trader Joe's and Daiso building) will be disproportionately impacted by vehicle parking for the additional food uses is based upon general observations that parking for other businesses within the center "spill over" into areas in front of the businesses on Parcel 2. The concept of reciprocal parking agreements is to allow customers for all uses within the center to utilize any available spaces within the center so that no one business has to provide all of its parking on its own parcel, thereby benefiting the entire center. There is no evidence that the customers patronizing Trader Joe's and Daiso only park within the boundaries of Parcel 2. Rather, parking for these businesses routinely spills into other parcels, as contemplated by the CC&Rs. D7Pg7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28, 2017 Page 8 Furthermore, the Parking and Circulation analysis submitted to the City (Advantec Consulting Engineers, March 2017) concludes that after completion of the new addition to the center on Parcel 9, there will continue to be available parking with a minimum 10 percent parking stall vacancies throughout the center during peak hours of operation with the additional food uses. Additionally, his client has completed the Conditions of Approval included in the original approval for the development of the new buildings in the center requiring modification to the traffic signal at Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive to include a dedicated left turn lane out of the center and new signage. C. City Attorney Response to Appeal: The City's Attorney, Mr. Nicholas Ghirelli, reviewed the appeal and responded to staff that the City is not a party to the shopping center's CC&Rs and has no duty to enforce them. The appellant property owners can initiate a civil action against the applicant property owner if they believe that there has been a violation of the CC&Rs and would like to enforce the CC&Rs. This is a private civil matter between property owners that does not involve the City. There appears to be substantial evidence to uphold the decision to approve the Minor Exception. The parking study indicates that even with the additional restaurant uses, there will continue to be a parking buffer at Haven Village Commercial Center. The adequate parking is demonstrated by a minimum 10 percent buffer in all areas of the shopping center. The appellant suggests that some parking for the new tenants will spill into parking used by Trader Joe's and Daiso. However, the study concludes that the center as a whole contains sufficient parking. Shopping centers comprised of multiple parcels are conditioned to provide reciprocal access and parking for this purpose. The appeal letter also asserts that the mitigation measures cost should not be passed onto other property owners at Haven Village. The Conditions of Approval are imposed on the applicant, not the other property owners. It's the applicant's duty to determine how to implement the mitigation. D. Staff Response to Appeal: The Haven Village Commercial Center is popular and Planning staff is aware that circulation and parking in the center can at times be challenging and in turn require that the applicant provide detailed analysis showing that adding additional food uses to the center would not adversely impact the other tenants in the center. Staff carefully reviewed the parking analysis submitted by the applicant for completeness and accuracy, and provided corrections on several of the parking analysis iterations prior to accepting the final study. The first parking analysis submitted to the City by the applicant showed that Zone 4 closest to the expansion area was near capacity during the busiest times of the week. The applicant investigated the issue and discovered that the center was being used as a de facto park -and -ride facility, negatively impacting the available parking along the southern boundary of the center. A parking attendant was hired to better regulate parking in the center and to shuttle employees to the underutilized parking spaces at the rear of the center. The second parking analysis submitted to the City was also deemed unacceptable as it was taken prior to the opening of the tenant Daiso, which is adjacent to Trader Joe's, and was impacted by the loss of parking due to construction of new buildings in the expansion area. The third study submitted to the City, which staff based the approval of the parking Minor Exception, included the majority of the 38 new parking spaces created in the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28, 2017 Page 9 expansion area and the parking demand created by Daiso, better reflecting the true parking demand in the center. The final Parking and Circulation Analysis (Advantec Consulting Engineers, March 2017) showed that at no time did the available parking in any of the 5 parking zones in the center fall below having a 10 percent parking buffer. This analysis included a hypothetical 65 vehicles added to Zones 3, 4 and 5, which are closest to the expansion area. That analysis showed that if only parking Zones 3 and 4 were used to absorb the additional parking demand that the available parking may fall below a 10 percent buffer. For this reason, staff only approved a Minor Exception for an additional 4,340 square feet of food uses in the center. The 4,340 square feet of additional food uses, which would add approximately 44 additional vehicles to the center, is 21 vehicles less than the hypothetical 65 parking spaces used in the Parking and Circulation Analysis and would allow for a 10 percent parking buffer in parking Zones 3 and 4. Staff's approval included Conditions of Approval that required continued use of the parking attendant to shuttle employees and customers to the back of the buildings (Zone 5). Staff has visited the site on numerous occasions and found that parking utilization of the parking spaces at the rear of the building (Zone 5) has greatly increased after implementation of the parking attendant. The parking attendant is also tasked with monitoring the parking lot including towing any vehicles in violation of the center's parking regulations. Staff has also verified that the applicant has completed all of the Conditions of Approval required by the original approval of the new buildings (DRC2008-00464), including adding a dedicated left turn lane to the Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive intersection and adding new directional signage. The center has also been recently repaved, eliminating any conflicting directional signage painted onto the roadway. Conclusion: Per section 17.16.110 of the Development Code permits an up to 25 percent reduction in the required parking through the approval of a Minor Exception when it can be supported by a parking study. Staff based their original decision to approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022, on the Parking and Circulation Analysis submitted by the applicant which shows all parking zones in the center would have a 10 percent parking buffer with the approved 4,340 square feet of additional food uses in the center. Staff has not received any additional information or evidence since the approval of these entitlements that would alter that original decision. The City and applicant's attorneys have each stated that the City is not party to the CC&Rs in the center and the City is not required to enforce the CC&Rs. Additionally, there is a shared parking agreement within the center which allows customers to park anywhere in the center regardless of the tenant they are visiting. E. Environmental Assessment: Planning Department staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 — Existing Facilities - which covers the operation, permitting and leasing of existing structures and as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — which covers exceptions in land use limitations. The project scope is for the operation of a drive-thru D7Pg9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2017-00437 — JUNG & JUEN, LLP June 28, 2017 Page 10 coffee shop and for a reduction in the required on -site parking spaces within an existing commercial center. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Planner has reviewed staffs determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular size legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. To date, no comments have been received regarding the project notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - CUP DRC2016-00021 and ME DRC2016-00022 Approval Letter dated May 9, 2017 Exhibit B - Parking and Circulation Analysis dated May 2017 Exhibit C - Letter of Appeal from Yung & Yuen, LLP dated May 22, 2017 Exhibit D - Response Letter from Applicant Attorney dated June 5, 2017 Draft Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 Draft Resolution of Approval for Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 CB:TV/jp D7 Pg 10 Mayor L. Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy Council Members Witham J. Alexander, Sam Spagnolo, Diane Williams City Manager John R. Gillison 10500 Civic Center Drive I P.O. Box 807 1 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 1 909.477.2700 1 www.CityofRC.us May 9, 2017 John Hunt CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC 285 Canal Drive SE Ocean Shores, WA 98569 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 — CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC - A request to operate a drive-thru coffee shop that is part of an approved 6,484 square foot addition to the Haven Village commercial center (DRC2008-00464), which is located in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue — APN: 0201-272-23. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 — CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC - A request to reduce the required on -site parking to allow additional food uses within the Haven Village commercial center, which is located within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue — APN: 0201-272-23. Dear Mr. Hunt, The Conditional Use Permit and Minor Exception process for the above -described projects have been successfully completed and approval has been granted based upon the following findings and conditions. Thank you for your participation and cooperation during this review process. Environmental Determination: Prior to any action being taken for this request, Planning Department staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 — Existing Facilities - which covers the operation, permitting and leasing of existing structures and as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — which covers exceptions in land use limitations. The project scope is for the operation of a drive-thru coffee shop and for a reduction in the required on -site parking spaces within an existing commercial center. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Planner has reviewed staff's determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption. Project Background: The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00464, for the expansion of the Haven Village commercial center on January 29, 2009. The approval was for the construction of two multi -tenant retail buildings totaling 6,484 square feet, along with one drive-thru lane. A Condition of Approval for the project required the filing of a Conditional Use Permit and submission of a drive-thru stacking study for the use of the drive-thru lane when the final tenant was known in order to verify that there was adequate vehicle stacking in the drive-thru lane for the proposed use. Proiect Description: The applicant is requesting a operation of a drive-thru lane that is part of a 1,802 Exception (DRC2016-00022) to reduce the required Conditional Use Permit (DRC2016-00021) for the square foot sit-down coffee house and for a Minor number of parking spaces within the Haven Village commercial center to permit additional food related uses. EXHIBIT A D7 Pg 11 APPROVALLETTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 CCI LOT 9 HAVEN LLC May 9, 2017 Page 2 Haven Village Parking Overview: The Haven Village commercial center is located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue. The center is made up of multiple buildings totaling 118,264 square feet on multiple parcels of land, with the parking and access shared between all of the parcels within the center. The center includes 575 parking spaces, which is 12 parking spaces (2 percent) deficient of the 587 required parking spaces, based on the current tenant makeup in the center. Parking Requirement for Existing Center: The required parking for commercial centers between 25,000 and 599,000 square feet in size and built prior to 1988 is 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. The parking ratio for commercial centers includes up to 15 percent of food uses and 10 percent of office uses. Required parking for food uses over 15 percent of total gross leasable area in the commercial center is 1 parking space per 100 square feet of gross leasable area devoted to food uses. The current tenant makeup of the Haven Village commercial center includes 19.7 percent of food related uses (restaurants) and 8.1 percent of office space. Table 2 below provides a breakdown of the existing parking conditions within the Haven Village Commercial Center. Table 2 — Existing Conditions Parking Analysis Summary Existing Conditions Parking Analysis Summary Existing Conddions Required Parking Stalls Existing C xtditions Basic Required Parking Stalls Total E<istng Haven'r ilage SF 116264 Required Parking Stalls /t,DDD SF Basic Rate 4.50 Total Basic Rate Required Parking Stalls 532 Existing Conditions Required Excess Restaurant Square Footage Parking Stalls Haven Village Existing Restaurant SF 23.252 Total Existing Haven Village SF 118.264 Haven Village 15% Restaurant SF Lint 17.740 Excess Haven `linage 15% Restaurant SF Lind 5.512 Axial stalls11000 Excess Restaurant SF Rate 10.00 Addition Required Restaurant Parking Stills 55 Required Existing Conditions Parking Stall-, Grand Total 587 Eaiclinrl Available Hausa Villape Paiking Stalls 575 r Existing Conditions Haven Village Parking Stalls Difference 12 Deficient Parking Requirement for Expansion Area: The new addition to the Haven Village commercial center totals 6,484 square feet in two adjacent buildings located at the southwest comer of the center. The required parking for the addition was calculated at 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (the current parking requirement for centers between 25,000 and 599,000 square feet). The required parking for the 6,484 square foot expansion area is 32 parking spaces based on being occupied by 100 percent retail tenants. The expansion area includes 38 new parking spaces, 6 spaces over the minimum requirement. These 6 excess parking spaces reduce the overall 12 parking space deficit in the center to a deficit of 6 parking spaces (1 percent). If the expansion area were parking at 100 percent food uses (10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) the parking requirement for the expansion area would be 65 parking spaces and the parking deficit would be 39 parking spaces (6 percent) for the entire center (including the 38 additional parking spaces in the expansion area)(see Table 6). D7 Pg 12 APPkOVAL LETTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 CCI LOT 9 HAVEN LLC May 9, 2017 Page 3 Table 6 — Proposed Expansion Conditions Parking Analysis Summary Propos. Expansion Parking Addition Analysis Summary Proposed Expansion Conditions Required Parking Stalls Resturant Retail Total Ropcse� E,-F 6 4_E6532 Requred Parking Sralla 71,000 SF Rate 10- Total Proposed Expansion Conditions Required Parking Stalls Proposed Expansion Conditions Number of Parking Stalls 3Haven Village Parking Stall Difference 27Daficie Total Parking Requirement including Expansion Area: The Haven Village commercial center will have 124,748 square feet of gross leasable area with the inclusion of the 6,484 square foot expansion area. Based on the existing center (118,264 square feet) being parked at the base 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area and the addition (6,484 square feet) being parked at the base 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area, the center is required to provide 619 parking spaces and will provide 613, or a deficit of 6 parking spaces based on the expansion area being 100 percent retail (1 percent deficiency). If the addition (6,484 square feet) is calculated at 100 percent food uses, the center would require 652 parking spaces, or a 39 parking space deficit (6 percent deficiency). Table —Proposed Expansion Parking Variance Analysis Summary Propoiied Expansion Parking Variance Analysis Summary Required Haven Village Parking Stalls Existing Condtons Required rh+k:ng Stalls Proposed Exp._nrslon Conditions Required Pdrking Stalls = Haven Village Requkred Parking Stags Grand Total with 652 -=.. Propoaed attsion Available Haven Village Parking Stalls Existing Conditions Available Parking Stalls 575 Proposed Expansion Conditions Available Parl ug Sta11s 38 Haven Village Available Parking Stalls Grand Total with Pro oaedExpansion 613 i Haven Village Parking Stall Difference 39 Deficie rR 0,Deficient D7 Pg 13 APPROVAL LETTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 CCI LOT 9 HAVEN LLC May 9, 2017 Page 4 Haven Village Parking Count: A Parking and Circulation Analysis (Advantec Consulting Engineers, March 2017) was submitted reviewing the available on -site parking within the Haven Village commercial center. Advantac conducted field counts of the available parking within the center between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Friday February 24, 2017, Saturday, February 25, 2017 and Tuesday February 28, 2017. Parking utilization counts were taken at 15 minute intervals. The Haven Village parking lot was divided into 5 parking zones for the purposes of the study, with Zones 3, 4 and a portion of 5 closest to the new expansion area. The parking study included the new parking spaces within the expansion area. The parking study found that in no parking zone did the number of open parking stalls fall below 10 percent. The highest parking utilization was on Saturday in Zone 1 (which is in front of Von's market), with a 10 percent parking buffer at 2:00 p.m. and on Saturday in Zone 3 (generally in front of Daiso/Corkys), with a 14 percent parking buffer at 11:00 a.m. The parking study included a second set of parking utilization tables which added the theoretical 65 parking spaces required by the expansion area if the 6,484 square foot expansion area were occupied by 100 percent food uses. The 65 additional parking spaces were added to Zones 3, 4 and 5. The second set of parking utilization tables show that at no time did the available parking fall below a 10 percent available parking space buffer. The reduce parking demand in the more heavily used area in front of the buildings, the center employs a parking attendant who shuttles employees within the center from and to their vehicles parked in Zone 5. If only Zones 3 and 4 were utilized to capture any overflow parking from the expansion area, available parking would theoretically fall slightly below 10 percent. For this reason, staff will only support 4,340 gross square feet of food uses in the expansion area of the total 6,484 square feet of available tenant lease area, which translates into a 6 percent reduction in the required parking for the entire center (including the expansion area). Drive-thru Lane Stacking: The submitted Parking and Circulation Analysis (Advantec Consulting Engineers; March 2017) utilizes the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers; Trip Generation Manuel, 9'^ Edition) Land Use Code 937 (Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Thru Lane) to determine that the proposed coffee shop with drive-thru lane will generate approximately 89 trips per hour, of which approximately 50 percent would utilize the drive-thru lane and 50 percent would park and walk in to the business. Each vehicle is estimated to take 10 minutes to serve, translating into approximately 9 vehicles arriving at the coffee shop during the busiest times of the day of which approximately 4 vehicles will use the drive-thru lane. A 4 vehicle queue would require a 80 foot drive-thru lane, which is the proposed length of the drive- thru lane. The study concludes that the drive-thru lane is of adequate length to meet the peak hour demand of a drive-thru coffee shop. Public Notification: Public notification of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 was sent to all property owners within 660 feet of the Haven Village commercial center on April 12, 2016 and April 27, 2016, respectively. Staff received a number of communications from an attorney representing one of the property owners of a commercial building within the Haven Village Commercial Center (APN: 0201-272-07). This property owner is concerned that the request to reduce the required parking will negatively impact available parking for his building within the center and will only support a parking reduction to allow for the drive-thru coffee shop and not any additional food uses. While staff understands that an adjacent property owner has concerns about parking availability in the center, staff is approving 4,340 square feet of food uses in the 6,484 square foot expansion area based on the findings in the following section. With the additional 4,340 square feet of food uses, the parking reduction will be 2.9 percent of the overall parking requirement for the Haven Village as a whole and will not reduce the available parking in any zone to less than 10 percent. D7 Pg 14 APPROVAL LETTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 CCI LOT 9 HAVEN LLC May 9, 2017 Page 5 Findings of Approval (Parking Minor Exception): The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The proposed reduction in the required parking to allow additional food uses within the Haven Village commercial site is consistent with General Plan, which intended that the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation provide for small-scale shopping centers located within residential neighborhoods. It also allows for the reduction of the required parking up to 25 percent through the approval of a Minor Exception when it can be supported by a parking study and the findings discussed here. The parking study (Advantec Consulting Engineers; March 2017) submitted to justify the parking reduction concludes that there will be adequate parking within the center with the proposed additional food uses. 2. The proposed Minor Exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The parking study submitted to justify the Minor Exception to reduce the required number of on - site parking spaces within the Haven Village commercial center concludes that there will continue to be adequate parking with the additional food uses and that the reduction is compatible with the other land uses in the area. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The Minor Exception to allow additional food uses within the Haven Village commercial center will provide the property owner greater flexibility in leasing the new tenant spaces within the approved expansion area without negatively impacting the other tenants within the existing center. Conditions of approval have been included to address employee parking, short term parking and the monitoring of the parking lot to help reduce overall parking demand. 4. The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious properties or improvements in the vicinity. It is common practice to grant a Minor Exception to reduce the required on -site parking where a parking study demonstrates that there will continue to be adequate parking within the project area. The parking submitted parking study concludes that there will continue to be an adequate number of parking spaces for all the tenants within the commercial center with the additional food uses and that the parking reduction will not negatively impact the surrounding property owners. Special conditions of approval have been added to this approval to future reduce any potential parking conflicts in the center. Findings of Approval (Conditional Use Permit): The proposed drive-thru coffee shop is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, Municipal Code, General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans or City regulation/standards. The project site is within Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district, which permits restaurants with drive-thru lanes subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A traffic study (Advantec Consulting Engineers; March 2017) was submitted with the proposed Conditional Use Permit (DRC2016-00021), which concludes that the drive-thru lane provides adequate vehicle stacking for the proposed use. 2. The site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed drive-thru coffee shop, including access, utilities, the absence of physical constraints, and can be conditioned to meet all related performance criteria and Development Standards. The project site is within a much larger commercial center which includes 2 other restaurants with drive-thru lanes (McDonald's and Del Taco) and is well suited for the proposed use. The commercial center is located adjacent to the 210 Freeway D7 Pg 15 APPROVAL LETTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 CCI LUT 9 HAVEN LLC May 9, 2017 Page 6 and provides adequate vehicle ingress and egress and vehicle stacking for the proposed drive-thru coffee shop. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. The proposed drive-thru coffee shop is of similar nature to the other businesses within the commercial center and is not expected to negatively impact the other tenants within the commercial center or property owners in the surrounding area. Conditions of Approval: This project is approved subject to the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Approval is for the operation of an approximate 1,802 square foot drive-thru coffee shop within the 6,484 square foot expansion area at the Haven Village commercial center at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue — APN: 0201-272-23. 2. Approval is also granted to permit a total of 4,340 square feet of food uses (restaurants) within the 6,484 square foot expansion area at the Haven Village commercial center. 3. To reduce any potential parking conflicts within the Haven Village commercial center, the following parking reduction measures shall be employed. • The parking monitor with vehicle shall monitor the parking lot and shuttle employees to Zone 5 during peak parking times. • The coffee shop tenant shall configure their customer's wifi connections to automatically disconnect after 1 hour of use to avoid having customers linger. • The tenants of the 6,484 expansion area shall request that their employees park in Zone 5 (as indicated in the parking study in file) • The 2,538 square foot restaurant tenant shall provide short term (15-20 mins) parking stalls dedicated to pick up of take-out orders only in order to reduce the time patrons are utilizing the available parking. . 4. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including any increase in square footage, improvements including new building construction, and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the City Planner prior to submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The City Planner may determine that modifications or intensifications of use require that this Conditional Use Permit be modified and/or an updated environmental analysis be completed as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 5. All temporary events shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approval by the City Planner prior to submittal of documents for construction, commencement of the activity or event, and/or issuance of a business license. Chapter 17.104 (Temporary Uses). 6. Per Section 17.66 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the applicant shall comply with all performance standards including, but not limited to, noise and vibration standards. D7 Pg 16 APPROVALLETTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 CC[ LOT 9 HAVEN LLC May 4, 2017 Page 7 7. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times, and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 8. All signs shall comply with Chapter 17.74 (Sign Regulations for Private Property) of the Development Code and Uniform Sign Program #37. 9. If operation of this Conditional Use Permit causes adverse effects upon adjacent residences, businesses, or operations including, but not limited to noise, loitering, parking, or disturbances, or if any of the Conditions of Approval are not fulfilled properly, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the City Planner for consideration and possible suspension, modification or revocation. 10. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 11. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Municipal Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 12. Any alteration to the building will require plan submittal and Building Permit issuance. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to issuance of building permits. This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $1,399 appeal fee. All City Planner decisions will be posted to the City's website at www.CitvofRC.us/AdminApprovedProiects. Decisions will be posted for a minimum of 30 days. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner at (909) 477-2750 extension 4316. Sincerely, PLANNI G DEPARTMENT Candyc Burnett City Planner CB:TV/jp Attachment: Standard Conditions D7 Pg 17 Parking and Circulation Analysis for Haven Village Commercial Center May 2017 Prepared for: CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC 6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Ste. 1820 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Prepared by: ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers 21700 Copley Drive, Ste. 350 Diamond Bar. CA 91765 EXHIBIT B D7 Pg 18 1. Background CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC is proposing to add two multi -tenant retail buildings (approx. 6,484 square feet) to the existing Haven Village Commercial Center (118,264 square feet) located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and the State Route 210 (SR-210) Freeway westbound off -ramp in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers (ADVANTEC) was retained by CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC to perform a parking and circulation analysis for the Haven Village Commercial Center. This "white paper" summarizes the parking and circulation analysis performed by ADVANTEC for the proposed two multi -tenant retail buildings. 2. Existing Conditions 2.1 Existing Conditions Parking Stall Inventory The existing conditions parking inventory at the Haven Village Commercial Center consists of 555 regular parking stalls and 20 ADA parking stalls as shown in Figure 1. Note the existing conditions parking stall inventory considers the parking stall inventory before any construction of the proposed expansion began per City staff direction. Figure 1 — Parking Stall Count ADVANTEC Consulting Eagineers CCt Lot 9 Haven LLC 1 D7 Pg 19 An analysis was performed to verify if the existing land use is being provided the required parking stalls per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements. Table 1 provides a summary of the existing land use. Table 1 — Existing Conditions Land Use Summary FKldo, Land Use Bumm+ry Tonard Total Raa4urap, Dlflre(dncl. Mad a DenlaO SF SF % SF % 0.sgl,i tl Tenant PARCF1 I AND S Sep:mnlo.us Wn 4.500 a 5N Bai thtl a6 sa— Nwl. Rrmry Brieim-. ,urge Ire. AN, BBC 1A00 1 400 wncn and Mner panda, and CAbopncnr 17919 1.T99 Gaoprastw San OseP Sen Co. 1.020 Faced Sani Adobe Anml Wsgal 1.060 1.0e0 Veterinarian Snow Nee 750 Nat S+Inn Oelra Ye9a f,050 vo9e Acaparnere 550 B50 A[upuncWleSa— Fdaardjades 750 ]50 hvaalmmla G,drad Nst, a' . t200 11. Orltna ROeRwurt - Wrap and Canner Ki.MArl 900 JCI,ki A11Stinks Cl Eductdonal 2,499 Tarring Barvkn Podi Caren, Pm bud) 2,500 2,500 lnnbd Bank of Arri (AM 290 AW 29O aq. IL++taPad Vessl I'm - Vacant Fool and Brody hM56 id. 2055 RaUA Sai Case. Ceanan 1752 Cry Cleaner Dined 1.100 110 Cenm1 I.hb1 Sludba hhNY Ads 2,421 Kat h6 rinsed Pone Broke 1.100 1.100 Asian MR arm has 1 i a0 Real SUW ay 1/MS 1,N0 Restaurant - With and dnmr Total for Piz aS 3214U 9,N6 8,579 PAIii 9 uN W0a 6 Spa i n$ real Saan HWe..)OPIddi 1,200 I.200 ROMEYediesa Vsarm Sbn t 215 Wean Slwe IeMM Ae0stn 2,15, 2351 RaaYkapoem Cork"RnL 5.142 5,112 Sreaaaet and open restsmsnt Total far Parwl9 11,26E 7l92 1,200 OTIBtFJOSTNG 96LOfYis DaITa<a 2509 2390 Fast Food nurand-ToBasis Mc Career, 3.611 395n Bre W-L k,ncn and dinnee Until 2.70 Gas Sladtn hhc 50ops 21,961 Retail Taller bee @ M. 12.000 If Vane 4219E All Grocery Snre Total Glhaas E+ii 72,W 6.111 TOTALS FOR FXI W: 1112N 29,26E 1 is.N.1 9,579 A parking stall availability and requirement assessment was conducted. The City of Rancho Cucamonga specifies 4.5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for commercial centers. The City of Rancho Cucamonga mandates when restaurants exceed 15% of the gross floor area in the commercial center, restaurants need to provide 10 parking stall per 1000 square feet. When considering the existing restaurants within the Haven Village Commercial Center, the restaurants exceed 15% of gross floor area in the commercial center and a different parking stall per square feet rate is used to calculate the additional parking stalls mandated for the excess restaurant square footage. Table 2 summarizes the existing conditions parking stalls required per the City of Rancho Cucamonga parking stall rates and is then compared to the actual parking stalls available. J� �% ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC 2 D7 Pig 20 Table 2 — Existing Conditions Parking Analysis Summary Edsting Conditions Parking Analysis Summary Existing Conditions Required Parking Stalls Existing Conditions Basic Required Parking Stalls Total Existing Haven Village SF 118.264 Required Parking Stalls /1,000 SF Basic Rate 4.50 Total Basic Rate Required Parking Stalls 532 Existing Conditions Required Excess Restaurant Square Footage Parking Stalls Haven Village Existing Restaurant SF 23,252 Total Existing Haven Village SF 118,264 Haven Village 15% Restaurant SF U;ni 17,740 Excess Haven Village 15% Restaurant SF Limit 5,512 Add9 stalls/1000 Excess Restaurant SF Rate 10.00 _ Addition Required Restaurant Parking Stalls 55 Required Existing Conditions Parking Stalls Grand Total 587 Existing Available Haven Village Parking Stalls 575 rsL< Existing Conditions Haven Village Parking Stalls Difference 12 Deficient As previously noted, existing parking stalls available is 575. City of Rancho Cucamonga mandates 587 parking stalls be provided. This results in 12 parking stall deficiency. 2.1 Existing Conditions Parking and Circulation ADVANTEC conducted field reviews on Saturday, February 25t", 2017 (7:00am to 9:00pm), Tuesday, February 28lh, 2017 (7:00am to 9:00pm), and Friday, February 241b, 2017 (7:00am to 9:00pm). The days of the week were selected to develop a good representation of the parking utilization throughout the week. Data collected during the field reviews include parking stall utilization and observed traffic circulation. The parking analysis was broken down into 5 parking zones within the Haven Village Commercial Center as seen in Figure 2 (Note the existing conditions parking and circulation considers the parking stall inventory after the near completion of the proposed expansion began per City staff direction). This provides the ability to analyze how demand is experienced throughout the commercial center's parking lot. The data was collected in 15 minute intervals to capture the number of parking stalls occupied throughout the study period. A post - analysis was done on the number of -parking stalls occupied compared to the overall number of parking stalls available in a particular parking zone. This provides a summary of demand versus capacity for each parking zone throughout the study period. ADVANTEC Construing Enfiueers CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC 3 D7 Pg 21 -r- C Q . Haven Avenue Figure 2 — Parking Zones 1 O A summary of the data collected is provided in Tables 3, 4, 5 and Figures 3, 4, 5. On Saturday, the midday period experiences the most activity during the day, however, each parking zone is above the 10% parking buffer throughout the day. For Tuesday, there is minimal traffic activity which translated to every parking zone having large parking buffers. On Friday, the day experiences the most activity during the midday and early evening periods. Similar to Saturday, all parking zones experience a parking buffer above 10% throughout the day. Overall the Haven Village Commercial Center has a large percentage parking buffer during most of the time periods analyzed. There was no time period when the parking buffer fell below the 5% to 10% parking buffer. )ADVANTEC Consulting Enfineers CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC J� 4 D7 Pg 22 9. -1AHS o I I I ITH 1'. 1 1 O P M 6 m Mill ye XX �Xe yXe yt �e ye �e �t x yxt y yXt �e �xe xx yXt ys «'�^a ga^o safe^o Qsseaao^o «ssaaaoa ^o aea a aas^o aaoa $; zaz�xsas:sxss6s6ssa6„ras�s66s6R6N5tM66ss:a:^:s:xm� Taaryzasx o$ R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R F' H R R R R R R R R R PH R R R R R R R R R R R R R 99 R R R R R R R R R R R a a a ti^ 9 .^. A X R m--" : R R A M a A ri Fj R 93 a S5t a a c S 2 a A a a m a 94 �Jpl a$� a R A a^ �x9-051917o; 0 ggaa a 3, r R R' P; A F R a 6 ffi G a f8 6 a 6 Be R 6 a m 6 A R 9 a 12 i R 6 R p 11 a 6 x R 6 ^^ 918 8 R' R$ 6 p 9 F 3 6 6 a a ^a g g �e x ��ee ��ee yytt xx�e ��tt �e XX yXe �t yX1 x gg �e XX yx� ��ee yy ,��ee �e �Ne �Me d 7« R R R 199 f 919 d«« R«8 9d89 e8RY 8 1 Y J« 9 BYE«« 11 Y I IA c. Y' y a p: as p a aid as a$us.9p9 6�Re 83"6 C371 4 �9e ��t gsa �6e �2rtRx��eeS:y�c7a y�ap�y»:g ��e p$�axG y8 #:NA s' zza rass<sssassay„ 9»�» »�»ssa»?ash"sass aaasas��os»aeell Q< ¢<< Q Q Q< Q Q< Q Q Q Q Q Q s d F S F i i s F s F F s i d F i F s F a s uF i a d s d n F sss:s a:s.�a.oeaq:a�aaaAsa:s�a:�gavaastvsav6psasesas� P aaa .,aada.. N D7 Pg 23 ;S-Z v dsn�t M dbn f9 W air � n Y - air ff hj.�t N j I I h'6�fr N b�0e F J10 I ' s4y6Oe'a• �._L_ I 'T lybS4f JOI all; uaaaad $n or��0 a°F.t dY sad v n� ha e` F i '4a by � Yb*rl` �b�rr . TAT - llb dal —r~^ 6�ov ebb �s bfdf uyig a9qua>nd %0 N kn'�1 C dy red O a N die a 1 ! sShc �l a+ I •y Oa. fb � �ba0l dbb FB bf iaµ�ne a8qu»ud Im D7 Pg 24 NSA IEMAyme .� mrRBm^myxe„rA a� m % Apt '.�yXIm p��e ��ey�: y�eAm �e yxe y�e �$e ��e 3^oBAe a^,^o,^oo^BAD^e^o^o BBBB�"�rBBo^a^o BBBSB^o BB9B�BB"d�oB2 ^o B"�"B'AB_^a,�BBB^o :RA AAA B::&$$MB --H!l a„^e ^e$553a Q11HH--H 44 1. 1 8$8$:3: MAAM RR RR RR RRR PH R R P� 9 RRRR �;l RRR R R R R«R«pRRRR«R RRRRRRRR F'RR R R R R R R RR asaaaaa«a "p° a95^„RR°9a maaA Sasaaaas A Na !;"a"a"a? HAHNH «£« A A B Aea A i RmRaRii ia�amBBB�BgRgl:aiimBiAiaBiBii«R$^fd $,^�A HE� �+H £«aA<$€$ B A x B R i R H AB«R�a8A8^o A«��AAmAARBAB R$ F a< F F a F F a a F F a a Rmguawaca.'^.Ra8A$aRa$aaB."7Aa$.'".A$'".R:8'".gS".7 F F a N F Fd a F F a N F Fa a Fd F a F F a< F d v a s F n i a F s F s F n o i F e F i d a F a F a F n F s s d a F n �'^ d F B a D7 Pg 25 tles Y d$ h Srs N do C l�S^e N did C_� hSlF o � F hy�Or S N b ! dSeo! 01 sYy !s 00f ,apnB a8ewavad w o0 ho EB 1.1 !v e� 'veOQ� y!S '-I W oOFr C i y 'e C hy! ' Y dOf� 0 E F R a _ haSer boo m hbrllr N b ! J 7 � 0! S! aYb�d• 4y c ,aNnB a8eluaaad M hrv0 e Ag �e $y!3 y0f3. h6,r"a die dSlF V h1�rt e dYb nr �b h S!f y'b —i •yod 9 6 g g9 °O ,a1MB.7gwand 0 E F Im D7 Pg 26 inp5^� A ImaR R RRT E1A Rf�£n R R S 3 <? C 5 v ^.: S MIA A m A A A m m R R m R R R R R R PH;] R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R a AAMea 41- m R A RR A mmy A m A m $4 Rry^t A aae 9 7 4 4 4 R Ra9��e yet gg9�2:9 yap��e �m �X:9e �XAeRRggR yR ,AeRa^ aaaaaaa aaa aa�g�g�aaa�aaaaaaa ;aga;aaaan A H 1a 3 3 G R 9 r R 3 R R 3 R R R G m 3 3 R 3 6 A A 3 G 3 3 v ::e a R R' A R a a 4 9X N 3 R 6 9 yAt Sl ^$ Sc e E 0110 A W XX R 9 R �X2 � x9 g � x4 � 5�I R 3W-4- JV�445Y3XA 3 3did3 Y R g JRdEdR9R5 5R8d a 4 a 4 f a a r mrovdd F F a a N< etA N<< Rp,ac�gA�Re8=Re8R$R:�Ro$RA8�R:$:R'"$aR:8�R8 a a<< N a IS a n as e s a e n a f a i> F a F i F MIS a n c F 6 5 6 m 3 m�6n a m D7 Pg 27 h; G �O a0 `c I ha��S J e!s d-4e a ha4`r Jf. 'b�f! to hb$af b ,aµng aaaivavaa s' E F " o0 h vOF� h J!s a O I I oa�l E i I oteT F � I i e�9zr I h t!d hbt Of by s by°ee se hb ,a{,ne a5gwa,ad v b B ae` hJfD a Ln oOf1 C haJee O o$e N htfJ c EO a C e°Fr y d4 XAl. F m a� a •p m oe h @. 'O h � ff lJ_ f 4:%ve f5 0 by `r'i ^ ugne>EaWauad V y ,aline aaeWaaad 0 E F D7 Pg 28 Traffic circulation within the commercial center was observed during the field review. Saturdays was observed to experience most traffic activity. The east leg of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive intersection experienced heavy inbound and outbound vehicles to and from the Haven Village Commercial Center. Inbound commercial center traffic was observed to stop at the 3-way stop Internal Intersection #1 as seen in Figure 6. This caused a queue of vehicle to backup up to the intersection of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive. Figure 6 — Inbound Vehicles Stopping at 3-way Stop Internal Intersection #1 A queue of outbound vehicles was also observed from the Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive intersection which would reach back to the 3-way stop Internal Intersection #1 as seen in Figure 7. This queue of vehicles at times would reach the adjacent Internal Intersection #2 as seen in Figure 8. )ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC j� 11 D7 Pg 29 Figure 7 — East leg of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive Outbound Vehicle Queue Figure 8 — East leg of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive Vehicle Queue Reaching Internal Intersection #2 AADVANTEC Consulting Engineers 12 CCI Lot 9 Haven LLU D7 Pg 30 3. Proposed Expansion Conditions 3.1 Proposed Expansion Parking Stall Addition The proposed two multi -tenant retail building requires to provide 65 parking stalls if used for 100% restaurant use and 32 parking stalls if used for 100% retail use. The parking stall requirement is derived from the City of Rancho Cucamonga which specifies 10.0 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for commercial centers with 15% or more restaurant gross floor area use and 5.0 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for new commercial centers. The two multi -tenant retail building site plans to provide 38 parking stalls resulting in a deficiency of 27 parking stalls for restaurant use or a surplus of 6 parking stalls for retail use. The 38 parking stalls will add to the existing parking stalls available within the Haven Village Commercial Center. Table 6 summarizes the proposed expansion conditions parking stalls required per City of Rancho Cucamonga parking rates and proposed number of parking stalls. The table shows a comparison between 100% restaurant and 100% retail use. Table 6 — Proposed Expansion Conditions Parkinq Analysis Summary Proposed Expansion Parking Addition Analysis Summary Proposed Expansion Conditions Required Parking Stalls Res turant Retail Total Proposed Expansion SF 6,484 6,484 Required Parking Stalls 11,000 SF Rate 10.00 5.00 Total Proposed Expansion Conditions Required Parking Stalls 65 32 Proposed Expansion Conditions Number of Parking Stalls 38 38 Haven Village Parking Stall Difference I 27Deficient 6Surplus 3.2 Parking Variance Haven Village Commercial Center is requesting a parking variance due to the 25% restaurant square footage land use within the commercial center. The proposed two multi -tenant retail building is providing, as previously noted, 38 parking stalls. Adding the new 38 parking stalls to the existing parking stalls results in having 613 overall available parking stalls. This is a 39 parking stall deficiency when compared to the required 652 parking stalls. Table 7 summarizes the parking analysis conducted for the parking variance. These parking stall requirements are based on fixed rates. ) 13 ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers CC[ Lot 9 Haven LLC J� D7Pg31 Table 7 — Proposed Expansion Parking Variance Analysis Summary Proposed Expansion Parking Variance Analysis Summary Required Haven Village Parking Stalls Existing Conditions Required Parking Stalls 587 Proposed Expansion Conditions Required Parking Stalls 65 Haven Village Required Parking Stalls Grand Total with Proposed Expansion 652 Available Haven Village Parking Stalls Existing Conditions Available Parking Stalls 575 Proposed Expansion Conditions Available Parking Stalls 38 Haven Village Available Parking Stalls Grand Totalwith Proposed Expansion 613 Haven Village Parking Stall Difference 39 Deficient 6%Deficient An analysis was done on the impact the proposed expansion would have on the actual available parking stalls including the proposed expansion parking stalls added. The proposed two multi -tenant retail building parking stall utilization was assumed to be a worst case scenario 100% of the 65 parking stalls required by the two multi -tenant retail building. Using the Existing Conditions Parking and Circulation data collected as part of the Existing Conditions analysis, the assumed 65 parking stalls utilization was added and divided between Zones 3, 4, and 5 for each 15 minute interval to see the impact of two multi -tenant retail building on the available parking stalls. A summary of the parking utilization considering the impact of the proposed two multi -tenant retail building is provided in Tables 8, 9, 10 and Figures 9, 10, 11. Overall, the Haven Village Commercial Center including the proposed expansion parking stalls has a large percentage parking buffer during most of the time periods analyzed. There was no time period when the parking buffer fell below the 5% to 10% parking buffer. The Haven Village Commercial Center with the 25% restaurant square footage land use is anticipated to accommodate all vehicles while maintaining a 5% to 10% parking buffer during all times and provide a surplus of parking stalls per City of Rancho Cucamonga parking stall rates. `, ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC J� 14 D7 Pg 32 0 '��'SI i u�Si v7�m"m" mr'i "�,7� �`A�� x� � �•� •Xa• x ��exx �.p ��n°4:r� m��m�� v7$�$v$ S1 Y. J4�S `✓ E i a„^mIXmeemuFX'F£�8wm5m'"m38maamffim&mffiSnmK`;eK'e68e8�e��&8W58�� 8 Ximn ry ar'tl 'A YJ �i�X4�mmnmmm £.n.,^.mm««n'Fi rv'^ « mam««a«ry .'7n«n «FI . «N%1 rom C P F C C C P p p C F F C C F n F' F C C F C F C C C C C C C C C C C C C f 9 �gg ^.�CpB�:epC; Si�aa�m„„xa��smmxceaaaN�$$�aA8�9S"¢B�NA8S51N�ax�aa �9 IEaaaa aaaaEEa"E??H?:?"aE"aaEaa s e 2 mAe33mx8888aAm8a&�mx88 S.8a&&F^��RSffi�R£;?�Km�aS�&ESF l��e� 2 a Fp N S d 5 wM M A dM 5 5 R: a a H �m-HN xa �aaasgS ��as�xaama��am�mssaa�Fas�a��sae�mx�� X akean X x r x n x X r X x �a�mmx^aTImxmxm X A N X X X X X X X M ¢ a a¢¢ a a a a¢ a¢ a a a a a a q Sl:8AagcPBoS�$'d�pap$�oB�R,e8�Aa8°.{R�8".JRo8� N D7 Pg 33 o S a � h °4 N a°'!y y d fr C h rdb O N h 4e C a° `o E d °J ram.. Sl. I T. b�lr hb ly h °fm r .. 3apnB a8eivavad ri v h °f8 °r �Y e oo. ha 9 T arts ^� o �— rya as !L r6d d°Oe dr0l ~ °° J hart. y'b tr •e�JJ hb of f br 6 hrfe b � 3aHn9 a84uao�ad h ze orb! v00 orl9 O !Ly fr d b >, Ilk J r a � V H i 2 6 hb 'or e h Or. 6 yp �p ok- +aNnB a84uaiad ti D7 Pg 34 6 "�"d��^B B^o 51 "�BB G a r. -�` 04SStt3aa&S333633336NR399a 9S 3.B 336e3&°„' 33339Aae B 9 to 31 A m 3 a 947 S9 a I� a i S? S:$: 5 B V a e` T$: A 9 3 a r 3 F 6 ffi.a R R '�° �^ R R R A 9 A leC 3 R a 3 F C R a R C ®� Ram 5 g 3 3& Is m ^m 9 C 3 R a 3 ZB 7 d T- 5 34 i «RnaaN3 :312RR R e a a c 9 a v a 2 ae, a is R C a 33 qs gig 101 TH�H--H-1 tq Rr a7Y293AaryRS�5i8gmag9�«�«8g«�'" 08�6�'¢.7a?mx�aas��xa6aoR a F p< F F a¢¢ F F C a F F < a F F N ap F F < a< F F a F< a F F a ap F F a s d> a d a D7 Pg 35 yT�! ' hrlS O 0! hO fS C haT'd O N WpQe C �rif o T� o Y d fl oar T" it t e �T hb B �aHne aBquaany v T-- apfB h T!s h°1T C h r^n O N � gpOe a h °c; t h 00e! r 7 hbbO! ~ dSts b by fo b � ~ +aHn0 a8nuauap h'a h pfe lG SlS a hopes _ � hartr 6 � d$6 O 'ey5 a N rf --`� l h ! n! 4io! •ytlp h rat ~ npne a8quavad hao FB to v� O el h fr C hatab a d C � r!f eop N hb'o! hb�si hbpee b 8 6' g g b xx °p ^ nNee aBnuavad Im D7 Pg 36 1 n s RRRR m?R "9 w:: 44: ::&aIA ARva:1m fa 1 r ePB `^°mR$^o��w^mS69q&�aPE6��®GRRRk�IC a K' P F 9 P 9 R 2 e 9 a 8 IS 9e a 98;e 6R^.SG&:SS6eS�S69��A�t�S�9996:^e�£SRRmS::76eG9C1 uSCG�A�i 5169G3SS �a��aaaaaaaaaaaa ?9Ha �aaaa�a� aaa�ga a�- aaaa q 4 ^+q AHTH I; 9 F 9 9 9 a 3 a R MI m o Is s 9 ^n C m sit; T 3 e f3 a D1 G N& R ^m C R m ®G 2 ^m C 12 R 6 S e i WS: e�s1�RR�ggice G�gSP�s& G�sxa&x� d�� mFisg,S pia 1; 81$a2 r_ 9 mix ac990F9aga9 m$kk::n�alN n 3a""a "aaam ni a ARa"aEa3m^a5 aa F F BFt F Ra8 :l ah F F an at F F Na<Au F So8<Gt F F MN<Qfni' F F Ny. 8<<�O F F aA F F Ntl a8 F F tqAv1345"J aaa'.�PRO F s :vReB�Rm�h F�9v F0 �F F was as ri.a m a ti D7 Pg 37 kola• lb. __ kris m oar CJ ar?d C O k �1 N �srl o 00 `e n a pyy°�l T q'brtll lL ry reel b b�Ol ' ypsB ~ nµnH a84unnd o� �t o Y p ylJ orAb 0 dpa s dl h It •C I � b l LL � brg'ff k ep 6 f °jb�Ol h b Or la b .! uµnH aBewavad �o <y lr vn p brr 0r v1 � o lr O � die L 1p ^ o 'rl L � 6AOl LL q '6�01 by �c .. nµn0 a94uavad I. D7 Pg 38 3.3 Drive Through Window Analysis An analysis was performed on the proposed coffee shop with a drive through window. The analysis consisted of determining the number of trips the coffee shop would generate during a typical coffee shop peak hour and forecasting the number of vehicles that would be at the coffee shop at a time during the peak. Trip generation was forecasted using ITE Land Use Code 937 found within ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9°i Edition. The analysis looked at the AM peak hour which can be considered the busiest period for a coffee shop. Table 11 summarizes vehicle trips forecasted. Table 11 — Coffee Shop Forecasted Trip Generation AM Peak Hour of Percent Percent Trips Trips Study Period ITE Code Generator Trip Rate Total Trips IN OUT IN OUT (per 1000sq. ft.) AM 937 101.4 49% 51% 89 94 183 In order to determine the number of vehicles that would be at the coffee shop at a time, an estimate of 5-6 minutes (0.1 hour) per visit was used. Since there is a near 50% in and 50% out trip split, the 89 trip in was used as the number of trips the coffee shop would need to be able to accommodate during the peak hour. Below is determination on the number of vehicles the coffee shop needs to accommodate at a time was determined: 89 trips 0.1 hrxvehicle x = 9 vehicles hr trip ADVANTEC estimates 9 vehicles would visit the coffee shop at a time. From the 9 vehicles, it was determined, based on similar coffee shop observations, that half (4 vehicles) of the 9 vehicles would utilize the drive through window. The site plans show a 95 foot long drive through lane length being provided as part of the coffee shop. Based on the analysis, a 4 vehicle queue requires an 80 foot long drive through lane. The proposed coffee shop drive through lane has the capacity to accommodate the forecasted drive through vehicle queue. ) ADVANT21 EC Consultive Engineers CC( Lot 9 Haven LLC J� D7 Pg 39 4. Conclusion/Recommendation The existing parking lot was observed to be operating with excess parking buffer during most times for all parking zones. The only time period some of the parking zones were near capacity was during time periods of lunch and dinner times. However, the overall parking lot had a parking buffer higher than 10% during all time periods. It is recommended that CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC encourage their existing tenants to utilize Zone 5 parking for employee parking and there by 'enhance' customer parking availability in the remaining Zones 1 to 4 particularly during Saturday and Friday'peak period'. Employees should be provided a golf cart shuttle service (similar to Figure 12) from Zone 5 to their respective working location Figure 12 — Golf Cart Shuttle Possible mitigations to improve the circulation of the commercial center include new signage placement and pavement stripping. Vehicles entering the commercial center should be encouraged to utilize the northerly driveway along Haven Avenue by installing signage at the entrance of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive. The installed signage would encourage drivers to enter the northerly driveway depending on the store or restaurant the costumers are visiting. To prevent vehicles entering the commercial center from stopping at the 3-way stop Internal Intersection #1, installation of signage informing drivers 'Incoming Traffic Does Not Stop' is recommended on all four intersection legs. To promote utilization of the two lanes on the east leg of the Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive intersection, it is recommended to extend the two lane pavement stripping to the 3-way stop internal intersection. J ADVANTEC Consultive Engineers CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC J� 22 D7 Pg 40 Based on the collected parking counts, the commercial center experiences excess parking stalls during most times. Saturdays during the midday is the only time period there is limited parking which mainly occurs due to the popularity of the commercial center during that time period only. The addition of the 38 parking stalls for the proposed two multi -tenant retail buildings resulting in 613 overall parking stalls are anticipated to accommodate a 25% restaurant gross floor area usage within the commercial center. It is recommended a 25% restaurant gross floor area parking variance be granted based upon the parking analysis conducted which showed a 10% or higher parking buffer when considering the proposed expansion. In reviewing the layout of the proposed two multi -tenant building (Figure 13), it was determined that the coffee shop estimated drive through traffic could be accommodated by the drive through lane and there by not create congestion issues at Internal Intersection #3. Figure 13 — Permitted Multi -Tenant Retail Buildings Site Plan ) 23 ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC J� D7 Pg 41 DUNG & YUEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 720 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-8880 * Facsimile: (213) 689-8887 E-Mail: ly@iyllo.com Via Messenger Ms. Lois Schrader Planning Commission Secretary Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 MONGP May 22, 2017 C1 OF ooC o C\3, jt y 2110 E��Eo ^ p�NNoN� RAC Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-0021 Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 Applicant: CCI Lot 9 Haven, LLC Haven Village Commercial Center (Parcel 9) APPEAL OF GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND MINOR EXCEPTION BY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA to CCI LOT 9 HAVEN, LLC Dear Sirs and Madams: Our law firm represents Thakor I. Patel and Kusum T. Patel, as Co -Trustees of the Patel Family Trust Created May 15, 1992 (collectively referred to as the "Owner"). The Owner owns that certain parcel of land and improvements thereon, commonly known as 6401 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California, California ("Parcel 2"). Parcel 2 is located in a multi -parcel integrated mixed -use retail center known as "Haven Village" located on the northeast corner of Haven and State Route 210. Parcel 2 is currently occupied by Trader Joe's market and the recently opened 10,000 s.f. Daiso store. On behalf of the Owner, this letter shall serve as an appeal to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director's (the "City") approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC 2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016- 00022 to CCI Lot 9 Haven LLCC (the "Applicant"). The City's approval is set forth in that letter issued dated May 9, 2017, to the Applicant. We hereby request an appeal before the City's Planning Commission or the City's designated panel to hear such appeal. Accompanying this appeal is a check in the amount of $1,399 for the appeal fee. The original conditional use permit ("CUP") in 2009 for Parcel 9 approved two multi - EXHIBIT C D7 Pg 42 Appeal Planning Director Approval Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 Minor Exception DRC Page 2 May 22, 2017 tenant retail buildings totaling 6,484 square feet and a drive -though. Except for the drive -through use of Parcel 9, the CUP envisioned NON -RESTAURANT use for Parcel 9. Based upon the approved use of Parcel 9, all zoning and parking calculations were based upon a use of Parcel 9 that excluded restaurants. The Applicant has now filed a conditional use permit to change the "drive -through" to a 1,802 s.f. sit down coffee shop AND to convert CUP approved retail space to a pizza restaurant, which would result in a significant and material short fall of parking at Haven Village. The Applicant's application is opposed by the Owner of Parcel 2. The opposition is based upon (i) the recorded CC&Rs governing the Parcel prohibit a reduction of parking ratios without the express consent of the owners of Parcel 1 and 2, (ii) the reduced marking would adversely affect existing and potential future tenants of Parcel 2. Preexisitng Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions Governing the Property The Applicant is the owner of one of nine commercial parcels located Haven Village. From the initial conception of the development in 1986, there has been a planned tenant restrictive use and parking limitations placed on the Haven Village parcels as reflected by the restrictions recorded against the parcels. Specifically, the permitted use and development for each the parcels was an integral part of the development of Haven Village and governed by the following, (i) a Declaration of Restrictions, and Grant of Easements dated January 6, 1986, and recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County, State of California on February 27, 1986 as Instrument No. 86-051221 (the "CC&Rs"), (ii) an Amendment No. 1 to Declaration of Restrictions and Grant of Easements dated July 14, 1986, and recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County, State of California on July 28, 1986 as Instrument No. 86-210230 ("Amendment I")" (iii) an Amendment No. 2 to Declaration of Restrictions and Grant of Easements dated December 13, 1990, and recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County, State of California on December 18 1990 as Instrument No. 90-497828 ("Amendment 2"), (iv) and an Amendment No. 3 to Declaration of Restrictions and Grant of Easements dated August 3, 2007, and recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County, State of California on August 16, 2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0477214 ("Amendment 3"). The CC&Rs, Amendment 1, Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 are herein collectively referred to as the "Restrictions". A copy of the Restrictions is attached with this appeal. Paragraph 2 of the CC&Rs states in pertinent part as follows: "Declaring plans to develop and plan for the development of the Shopping Center as an integrated retail sales area for the mutual benefit of all real property in the Shopping D7 Pg 43 Appeal Planning Director Approval Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 Minor Exception DRC Page 3 May 22, 2017 Center, and for such purposes does hereby fix and establish the easements, covenants, restrictions, liens and charges hereinafter contained (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Restrictions"), upon and subject to which all of said Shopping Center, or any part thereof, shall be improved, held, leased, sold and/or conveyed. Such Restrictions shall run with the land and inure and pass with said property and shall apply to and bind the respective successors in interest thereof, and all and each thereof is imposed upon said property as a mutual equitable servitude in favor of said property and any portion thereof." Paragraph 3 of the CC&Rs provided that the Center was to be developed in two phases, Phase I consisting of Parcels 1 — 8 and with Phase II of the Center consisting of the Applicant's Parcel 9. Section 1.05 (a) of the CC&Rs governing the development of Phase II (Parcel 9) stated the following: "Except as hereinafter provided, the development of each and every portion of Phase II of the Shopping Center shall be subject to the prior written approvals of the Declaret and the Owner of, and tenant of the Building Area on Parcel 1, which approvals shall be unreasonably withheld. Prior to the development of any said portion of Phase II [Parcel 9], the Owner thereof shall submit a plot plan delineating the proposed manner of said development for such approvals and theses CC&Rs shall be amended to provide for the recordation of said plot plan, in the form in which finally approved, and the incorporation of the same as a part of "Exhibit B" in these CC&Rs and/or said amendment hereto shall thereafter be deemed to refer to Exhibit B hereto and said plot plan. Such development shall not in any wav, affect the access to Phase I from adioin public streets, the visibility of the buildings located on said Phase from adjoining public streets, or the parking ratio or pattern of traffic circulation of said Phase..." [emphasis added] Amendment No. 1 to the CC&Rs amended the above Section 1.05 (a) wherein in addition to the Declarant and owner of Parcel 1, the Phase II development required approval of Parcel 2 (my client). Paragraph 3 of Amendment No. 1 states the following (referring to above Section 1.05 (a) of the CC&Rs): "Section 105(a) of the Declaration is hereby modified to provide that approval to be obtained pursuant to said Section shall also be obtained, in the manner provided in said Section, from the Owner of, and tenant of the Building Area on, Parcel 2." D7 Pg 44 Appeal Planning Director Approval Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 Minor Exception DRC Page 4 May 22, 2017 _Applicant's Failure to Obtain Consent of Parcel 1 Owner and Parcel 2 Owner to Reduce Parking Ratio Based upon the plain reading of Paragraph 1.05 (a) of the CC&Rs, the Applicant is required to obtain the consent of both the owner of Parcel 1 (Vons) and the owner of Parcel 2 (Owner) to reduce the required parking ratio of Parcel 9. The Applicant cannot seek a variance from the City which reduces the parking ratio of Parking 9 without confirming that the owners of Parcels 1 and 2 have granted such consent to the Applicant. As evidence by Amendment 1, Amendment 2 and Amendment 3, where they is a proposed deviation of the restricted use of Haven Village, in each and every instance an amendment to the CC&Rs was agreed to by the owners of Haven Village and evidenced by an amendment to the original CC&Rs. This is NOT the case in this situation, where the Applicant is trying to use the City to obtain approvals for Parcel 9 which Applicant is required to obtain from the owners of Haven Village as set forth in the Restrictions. The City has both actual and constructive knowledge of the parking limitations placed on Parcel 9 in the Restrictions along with the objections to such parking variances by the Owner. Accordingly, the Applicant's applications for a Conditional Use Permit and Minor Exception must be denied. City Interference with Existing Contract Absent existing contractual rights between property owners, a city may grant discretionary approvals to property owners. In this case, the development rights and restrictions placed on the owners of the parcels of Haven Village are governed by the Restrictions recorded against the parcels. The City cannot interfere with these contractual rights between the parcel owners. The Owner acquired Parcel 2 with the specific understanding as to what developments could be developed on Parcel 2 along with the remaining parcels in the Center. In addition the Owner of Parcel 2 expressly understood that the NO reduction of parking ratios could be granted to the owner of Parcel 9 without the express written consent of Parcel 2. Parcel 9's close proximity to the Parcel 9 and the Applicant's request for reduced parking would cause irreparable harm to the Owner and Owner's tenants of Parcel 2. The City cannot interfere with the contractual rights and obligations in the Restrictions agreed to by and between the owners of the 9 parcels in Haven Village. D7 Pg 45 Appeal Planning Director Approval Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 Minor Exception DRC Page 5 May 22, 2017 When the Center was developed, there was nothing to prohibit the developer from imposing a higher parking ratio for the Center than what was required by City code. This higher parking ratio was imposed on the developer and to all future parcel owners in the recorded Restrictions. The City does not have the authority to unilaterally decrease and change the parking requirements which are otherwise required in the Restrictions and imposed upon the owners' of the Haven Village. The Applicant was premature in seeking the variances from the City. The CC&Rs required the Applicant to seek approval of the variances from the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, and if such approvals were obtained, thereafter to seek City approval of the variances. Discretionary Approval Adverse Impact on Existing Parcel 2 Tenants The City initially approved construction of the additional 6,484 s.f. of retail buildings on Parcel 9 in 2009. The approvals were documented in Resolution No. 09-07, Conditional Use Permit No. DRC2008-00464, and related planning staff reports (collectively referred to as the "Conditions of Approval". The Owner request that the City require the Applicant to comply with the City's original Conditions of Approval. As part of the original CUP approval, the January 28, 2009, staff report stated there would be 20 Excess Parking Spaces following completion of improvements for Parcel 9. The excess parking generated from Parcel 9 was based upon the fact that all Parcel 9 uses would be non -restaurant retail use. The Applicant's requested parking variance by allowance of restaurant space would create 39 deficient parking spaces at Haven Village (Table 7 of Approval). Parcel 2's tenants Trader Joe's and Daiso store have already expressed a concern to the Owner of the existing parking situation absent the opening of any business' of Parcel 9. On multiple occasions, Trader Joe's has informed the Owner of the lack of parking for its customers. The allowance of insufficient and deficient below parking code spaces at Haven Village further puts the Owner at economic risk if either Trader Joe's or Daiso fail to exercise their options to extend their leases due to lack of parking at Haven Village. The Applicant submitted two parking studies by Advantec Consulting Engineers with this application. The Owner believes both studies to be inadequate. The first study dated March 2016, did not account for the increased parking requirements generated by the 9,886 square foot Daiso store which was under construction and yet to open. The information in the Applicant's _ March 2017 parking study is inadequate and contains information that only reaffirms why the a •. Appeal Planning Director Approval Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 Minor Exception DRC Page 6 May 22, 2017 Applicant's request must be denied: 1. The parking study shows a disproportionate adverse affect on the Owner of Parcel 2. Given its close proximity to Parcel 9, the increased parking requirements triggered by restaurant use on Parcel 9 would essentially eliminate all parking for Parcel 2 customers. The parking study identifies all available parking spaces for Haven Village, including parking spaces near the Vons' store which would not be as impacted as Parcel 2. In effect due to lack of parking spaces provided by the Applicant on Parcel 9, Parcel 9 restaurant customers would effectively be using those parking spaces intended for Trader Joe's and Daiso to make up for the deficiency of parking spaces on Parcel 9. As anecdotal evidence, one just needs to observe the parking situation created by Corky's Restaurant. During lunch and dinner hours (seven days a week), the parking area in front of the restaurant is inadequate and customer parking spills over into areas that Trader Joe's and Daiso customers would otherwise park. 2. Page 11 of the traffic report identifies a queue of cars with a backup to the intersection of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive. This situation would only exacerbated by both the drive -through and restaurant use on Parcel 9. A condition imposed upon the Applicant in the original approval of the CUP, required modification of the existing traffic signal at Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive with dedicated signaled left turn lane to assist traffic flow out of the existing center. We would request confirmation that this work has been completed. 3. The mitigation measures offered in the report are also lacking in detail. As an example, the Applicant is proposing to use "golf carts" to shuttle employees from "parking zone 5". This possible mitigation measure does not provide the number of golf carts to be utilized, who will pay for the costs of the golf carts, who will operate the costs and whether such costs are to be burdened by the owners of all 9 parcel owners of Haven Village. It is the Owner's position that the costs of any mediation measures should NOT be passed onto the Owner or other parcel owners of Haven Center. 4. The Owner's Parcel 2 is also the closest parcel located to the new development that is not owned by the Applicant or its related entities. Due to the proximity to the new development, the Owner will be the party that will bear the brunt and burden of the parking shortage at Haven Village. The City's actions to approve the parking variance and related approvals is favoring the D7 Pg 47 Appeal Planning Director Approval Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 Minor Exception DRC Page 7 May 22, 2017 Applicant notwithstanding the Applicant's contractual rights and obligations imposed upon the Applicant and all parcel owners of Haven Village as set forth in the recorded Restrictions. Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully request a hearing before the Planning Commission and for the Planning Commission to reverse the Planning Director's decisions in granting Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022. Respectfully Submitted Roger Yuen Jung & Yuen, LLP Attorneys for Owner Enc GRESHAM SAVAGE hnuova 11.0,11 ien K:rc ham>aca}eavn • San 13vrurdillo Oilice (909) 8911409 . lai (909) $911i168i June 5, 2017 VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL Ms. Lois Schrader Planning Commission Secretary Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Re: Response to Appeal of Granting Conditional Use Permit and Minor Exception by City of Rancho Cucamonga to CCI Lot 9 Haven, LLC; CUP DRC2016-00021; Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 Dear Ms. Schrader: This office represents CCI Lot 9 Haven LLC ("Applicant"), with regards to the appeal of the May 9, 2017 approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 filed on May 22, 2017 by Jung & Yuen, LLP on behalf of their clients, Thakor 1. Patel and Kusum T. Patel ("Appellants") (the "Appeal"). The approval authorizes a drive-thru coffee shop and a minor reduction in on -site parking to allow incorporation of additional food uses within a previously -approved 6,454 square foot addition to the Haven Village Shopping Center (the "Center"). In the appeal, Appellants allege that the preexisting covenants, conditions, and restrictions ("CC&Rs") governing the Center required the Applicant to obtain the consent of both the owner of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ("Appellant's property") prior to seeking approval of the CUP and Minor Exception due to the potential impact on parking ratios. Appellants further contend that the City is interfering with Appellant's contractual rights under the CC&Rs by approving the CUP and Minor Exception without Appellant's prior consent. 550 Einc lin.+pitulil) [.:.tne. Suite?00 • gnu I3emardino. Culiloniia 9249E 1i Sirecl. Suite 700 • Rtrcrade. CalilLrnia 92501 CStreet.Suil•Ikill • San Dicgu, Calitvtnia`)21i)I EXHIBIT D Finn-DCC - 3136115.1 D7 Pg 49 Ms. Lois Schrader Planning Commission Secretary June 5, 2017 Page 2 Initially, Applicant disagrees that there has been, or will be, any violation of the CC&Rs governing the Center after development of the project. Appellant's position is based on a misreading of the pertinent provisions of the CC&Rs and, in fact, conveniently omits recognition of provisions of the CC&Rs that are contrary to Appellant's argument. Regardless, as discussed in detail below, a violation of the CC&Rs is an inappropriate ground for appeal and does not justify invalidation of the CUP and Minor Exception. The City does not have a duty or obligation to consider privately contracted CC&Rs when granting a land use entitlement. Neither the City's Municipal Code, (the "Code") nor California case law, demand that a city with actual or constructive knowledge of CC&Rs deny a land use approval due to potential violations. The City is not a party to the CC&Rs and has no legal duty or ability to enforce them. Any alleged violation of the CC&Rs, in and of itself, is insufficient to call into question the findings of the City in making the approval. Therefore, the potential impact of a City approval on the legal rights of the parties to the CC&Rs is not a proper consideration when granting a land use entitlement. The CC&Rs are a Private Contract Which the City Has No Duty to Consider or Enforce in Granting a Land Use Entitlement. California law provides that covenants and restrictions are enforceable equitable servitudes that benefits and binds all owners of separate interests in the development. See Civ. Code, § 5975. CC&Rs are akin to a private contract between two or more parties. Francis T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 490. However, as with any contract, the terms of the CC&Rs apply solely to the contracting parties and not to unrelated third parties. The City is not required to follow or even reference the CC&Rs when considering an application for a CUP or minor exception since the City is not a party to the CC&Rs. Instead, a land use approval is governed by the terms of State and local law. Any potential violation of the CC&Rs, as alleged by Appellants, is not a necessary or appropriate consideration when deciding whether to approve a CUP or Minor Exception. The City's Findings in Approving the CUP and Minor Exception Are Supported BX Substantial Evidence Section 17.16.120 regulates the review process for a granting a CUP. Under Section 17.16.120(D) of the City's Code, the planning director "shall approve, or approve with FrcM-ACC--3136145.1 D7 Pg 50 Ms. Lois Schrader Planning Commission Secretary June 5, 2017 Page 3 conditions, an application for a conditional use permit after finding all of the following: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with zoning code, Municipal Code, general plan, and any applicable specific plans or city regulations/standards; 2. The site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints and can be conditioned to meet all related performance criteria and development standards; 3. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. See § 17.16.120(D)(1)-(3). The approval for a minor exception is similar. The planning director "shall approve, or approve with conditions, an application for an exception after finding all of the following: 1. The minor exception is consistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement; 2. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area; 3. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions; 4. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. See § 17.16.110(E)(1)-(4). As reflected in the City's approval letter of May 9, 2017, the City made comprehensive factual findings in supporting the CUP and Minor Exception. Specifically, the City concluded that "[t]he proposed Minor Exception is F.-IX C--3136145.1 D7 Pg 51 Ms. Lois Schrader Planning Commission Secretary June 5, 2017 Page 4 compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The parking study submitted to justify the Minor Exception .... concludes that there will continue to be adequate parking with the additional food uses and that the reduction is compatible with the other land uses in the area." This finding is supported by the Parking and Circulation Analysis prepared by Advantec Consulting Engineers ("Parking Analysis"). The Parking Analysis concludes that, after development of Parcel 9, there will still be available parking with a minimum ten percent (10%) parking stall vacancies throughout the center during peak hours of operation. Accordingly, sufficient parking will be available with the additional food uses incorporated into Parcel 9. The City also imposed a number of conditions of approval to ensure no adverse impacts from the CUP and Minor Exception. Appellant provides nothing more than anecdotal evidence and unsupported opinion in challenging the City's findings which are insufficient. In support of the appeal, Appellant generally asserts that the development of Parcel 9 will have a "disproportionate adverse effect on Parcel 2" and that Parcel 2 will "bear the brunt and burden" of any parking shortage. This claim is based solely upon the general observation that parking for other businesses within the center "spills over" into areas in front of the businesses on Parcel 2. The concept of reciprocal parking agreements is to allow just that — customers for all uses within the center are able to utilize any available spaces within the center so that no one business has to provide all of its parking on its own parcel thereby benefiting the entire center. There is no evidence to suggest that customers patronizing the Trader Joe's and Daiso only park within the boundaries of Parcel 2. Rather, parking for these businesses routinely spills into other parcels, as contemplated by the CC&Rs. Appellant is correct that a condition of approval in the original CUP approval required a modification to the traffic signal at Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive to include a dedicated left turn lane out of the center. This improvement has been completed. Conclusion The City's approval of the CUP and Minor Exception are appropriate and supported by substantial evidence, as required under California law and the City's Code. The City was not bound to consider, much less enforce, the CC&Rs when it granted the CUP and Minor Exception. As such, the alleged violation of the CC&Rs does not constitute valid grounds for invalidating the CUP and Minor Exception. RP -DCD.. 3136145.1 D7 Pg 52 Ms. Lois Schrader Planning Commission Secretary June 5, 2017 Page 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal of the Planning Director's approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 should be denied. Very truly yours, Donovan C. Collier, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation DCC:djb Fi m-OCC -- 3136145.1 D7 Pg 53 RESOLUTION NO. 17-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL DRC2017- 00437 AND UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021, APPROVING A REQUEST TO OPERATE A DRIVE-THRU COFFEE SHOP IN A 6,484 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE HAVEN VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) DISTRICT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND LEMON AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNs: 1087-081-12, 19 THROUGH 24. A. Recitals. 1. On the 9th day of May 2017, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga administratively approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021. 2. The law offices of Jung & Yuen, LLP filed an application for the appeal of a City Planner approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject appeal request is referred to as "the application." 3. On the 22nd day of May 2017, the City of Rancho Cucamonga received a timely appeal of Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021. 4. On the 28th day of June 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on June 28, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Haven Village Commercial Center is located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue and is within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District; and b. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00464, for the expansion of the Haven Village Commercial Center on January 29, 2009. That approval included a Condition of Approval requiring a Conditional Use Permit be filed for the operation of the drive-thru lane that was a part of that project; and C. Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 was submitted for the operation of drive- thru lane related to the operation of a 1,802 square foot coffee shop; and D7 Pg 54 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-67 THE CITY'S PLANNER APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 June 28, 2017 Page 2 d. The Parking and Circulation Analysis submitted for the Conditional Use Permit concludes that the drive-thru lane is of adequate length to meet the peak hour demand of a drive- thru coffee shop. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. CC&Rs are a private contract between two or more parties and apply solely to the contracting parties and not to unrelated third parties. The City is not required to follow or even reference the CC&Rs when considering an application, as the City is not a party to the CC&Rs. The land use approval by the City is rather governed by the terms of State and local law and any potential violations of the CC&Rs is a civil matter between the contracting parties. b. The Parking and Circulation Analysis submitted for the project demonstrates that at no time does the available parking in any of the 5 parking zones in the center fall below having a 10 percent parking buffer, including the parking necessary to support an additional 4,340 square feet of food uses. C. All parcels within the subject commercial center are subject to a reciprocal parking agreement, which does permit the owner of any parcel within the center to claim sole ownership of parking spaces within their parcel or to restrict use by the owner of another parcel within the center. d. All conditions of approval related to Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00464 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. e. The proposed drive-thru coffee shop is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, Municipal Code, General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans or City regulation/standards. The project site is within Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district, which permits restaurants with drive-thru lanes subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A traffic study (Advantec Consulting Engineers; March 2017) was submitted with the proposed Conditional Use Permit (DRC2016-00021), which concludes that the drive-thru lane provides adequate vehicle stacking for the proposed use. f. The site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed drive-thru coffee shop, including access, utilities, the absence of physical constraints, and can be conditioned to meet all related performance criteria and Development Standards. The project site is within a much larger commercial center which includes 2 other restaurants with drive-thru lanes (McDonald's and Del Taco) and is well suited for the proposed use. The commercial center is located adjacent to the 210-Freeway and provides adequate vehicle ingress and egress and vehicle stacking for the proposed drive-thru coffee shop. g. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. The proposed drive-thru coffee shop is of similar nature to the other businesses within the commercial center and is not expected to negatively impact the other tenants within the commercial center or property owners in the surrounding area. 4. Planning Department staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. D7 Pg 55 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-67 THE CITY'S PLANNER APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00021 June 28, 2017 Page 3 The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 — Existing Facilities - which covers the operation, permitting and leasing of existing structures. The project scope is for the operation of a drive-thru coffee shop within an existing commercial center. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Planner has reviewed staffs determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby denies appeal'DRC2017-00437 and approves the Conditional Use Permit DRC2017-00021 subject to each and every condition set forth in the City Planner's approval letter dated May 9, 2017 for Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00021 subject to each and every condition .set forth in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 92 ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby, certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: D7 Pg 56 Conditions of Approval R\NCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department Project #: DRC2016-00021 DRC2016-00022 Project Name: Haven Village Expansion Location: 6417 HAVEN AVE - 020127223-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. To reduce any potential parking conflicts within the Haven Village commercial center, the following parking reduction measures shall be employed. The parking monitor with vehicle shall monitor the parking lot and shuttle employees to Zone 5 during peak parking times. • The coffee shop tenant shall configure their customer's wifi connections to automatically disconnect after 1 hour of use to avoid having customers linger. • The tenants of the 6,484 expansion area shall request that their employees park in Zone 5 (as indicated in the parking study in file) • The 2,538 square foot restaurant tenant shall provide short term (15-20 mins) parking stalls dedicated to pick up of take-out orders only in order to reduce the time patrons are utilizing the available parking. 2. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including any increase in square footage, improvements including new building construction, and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the City Planner prior to submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The City Planner may determine that modifications or intensifications of use require that this Conditional Use Permit be modified and/or an updated environmental analysis be completed as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. All temporary events shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approval by the City Planner prior to submittal of documents for construction, commencement of the activity or event, and/or issuance of a business license. Chapter 17.104 (Temporary Uses). 4. Add your condition here! 5. Per Section 17.66 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the applicant shall comply with all performance standards including, but not limited to, noise and vibration standards. 6. If operation of this Conditional Use Permit causes adverse effects upon adjacent residences, businesses, or operations including, but not limited to noise, loitering, parking, or disturbances, or if any of the Conditions of Approval are not fulfilled properly, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the City Planner for consideration and possible suspension, modification or revocation. Printed: 6/12/2017 w _CityofRC.us D7 Pg 57 Project #: DRC2016-00021 DRC2016-00022 Project Name: Location: Haven Village Expansion 6417 HAVEN AVE - 020127223-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, .its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 8. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 10. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans it effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. Printed:6A www.CityofRC.us 2/2017 Page 2 of 2 D7 Pg 58 RESOLUTION NO. 17-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL DRC2017- 00437 AND UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S APPROVAL OF MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022, APPROVING A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED ON -SITE PARKING TO ALLOW UP TO 4,340 SQUIRE FEET OF FOOD USES FOR A 6,484 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE HAVEN VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) DISTRICT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND LEMON AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APNs: 1087-081-12, 19 THROUGH 24. A. Recitals. 1. On the 9th day of May 2017, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga administratively approved Minor Exception DRC2016-00022. 2. The law offices of Jung & Yuen, LLP filed an application for the appeal of a City Planner approval of Minor Exception DRC2016-00022, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject appeal request is referredto as "the application." 3. On the 22nd day of May 2017, the City of Rancho Cucamonga received a timely appeal of Minor Exception DRC2016-00022. 4. On the 28th day of June 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on June 28, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Haven Village Commercial Center is located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue and is within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District; and b. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00464, for a 6,484 square foot addition of the Haven Village Commercial Center on January 29, 2009; and C. On May 9, 2017 the City Planner approved an additional 4,340 square feet of food D7 Pg 59 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-68 UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S APPROVAL OF MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 June 28, 2017 Page 2 uses within the Haven Village Commercial Center with the approval of Minor Exception DRC2016- 00022; and d. The Haven Village Commercial Center will have 124,748 square feet of gross leasable area with the inclusion of the 6,484 square foot expansion area. The center is required to provide 642 parking spaces and will provide 613 (29 parking space deficit) based on the 6,484 square foot expansion area being occupied by 4,340 square feet of food uses and 2,144 square feet of retail uses (4.5 percent parking deficiency). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. CC&Rs are a private contract between two or more parties and apply solely to the contracting parties and not to unrelated third parties. The City is not required to follow or even reference the CC&Rs when considering an application, as the City is not a party to the CC&Rs. The land use approval by the City is rather governed by the terms of State and local law and any potential violations of the CC&Rs is a civil matter between the contracting parties. b. The Parking and Circulation Analysis submitted for the project demonstrates that at no time does the available parking in any of the 5 parking zones in the center fall below having a 10 percent parking buffer, including the parking necessary to support an additional 4,340 square feet of food uses. C. All parcels within the subject commercial center are subject to a reciprocal parking agreement, which does permit the owner of any parcel within the center to claim sole ownership of parking spaces within their parcel or to restrict use by the owner of another parcel within the center. d. All conditions of approval related to Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00464 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. e. The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The proposed reduction in the required parking to allow additional food uses within the Haven Village Commercial Center site is consistent with General Plan, which intended that the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation provide for small-scale shopping centers located within residential neighborhoods. It also allows for the reduction of the required parking up to 25 percent through the approval of a Minor Exception when it can be supported by a parking study and the findings discussed here. The parking study (Advantec Consulting Engineers; March 2017) submitted to justify the parking reduction concludes that there will be adequate parking within the center with the proposed additional food uses. f. The proposed Minor Exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The parking study submitted to justify the Minor Exception to reduce the required number of on -site parking spaces within the Haven Village Commercial Center concludes that there will continue to be adequate parking with the additional food uses and that the reduction is compatible with the other land uses in the area. g. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The Minor Exception to allow additional food uses within the D7 Pg 60 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-68 UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S APPROVAL OF MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 June 28, 2017 Page 3 Haven Village Commercial Center will provide the property owner greater flexibility in leasing the new tenant spaces within the approved expansion area without negatively impacting the other tenants within the existing center. Conditions of Approval have been included to address employee parking, short term parking and the monitoring of the parking lot to help reduce overall parking demand. h. The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious properties or improvements in the vicinity.lt is common practice to grant a Minor Exception to reduce the required on -site parking where a parking study demonstrates that there will continue to be adequate parking within the project area. The parking submitted parking study concludes that there will continue to be an adequate number of parking spaces for all the tenants within the commercial center with the additional food uses and that the parking reduction will not negatively impact the surrounding property owners. Special Conditions of Approval have been added to this approval to future reduce any potential parking conflicts in the center. 4. Planning Department staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305— Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations —which covers exceptions in land use limitations. The project scope is for a reduction in the required on -site parking spaces within an existing commercial center. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Planner has reviewed staff's determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs with staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby denies appeal DRC2017-00437 and approves Minor Exception DRC2016- 00022 subject to each and every condition set forth in the City Planner's approval letter dated May 9, 2017 for Minor Exception DRC2016-00022 and the attached Standard Conditions incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AN ATTEST: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman Candyce Burnett, Secretary D7 Pg 61 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-68 UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S APPROVAL OF MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2016-00022 June 28, 2017 Page 4 I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of June 2017, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: D7 Pg 62 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2016-00021 DRC2016-00022 Project Name: Haven Village Expansion Location: 6417 HAVEN AVE - 020127223-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. To reduce any potential parking conflicts within the Haven Village commercial center, the following parking reduction measures shall be employed. • The parking monitor with vehicle shall monitor the parking lot and shuttle employees to Zone 5 during peak parking times. • The coffee shop tenant shall configure their customer's wifi connections to automatically disconnect after 1 hour of use to avoid having customers linger. • The tenants of the 6,484 expansion area shall request that their employees park in Zone 5 (as indicated in the parking study in file) • The 2,538 square foot restaurant tenant shall provide short term (15-20 mins) parking stalls dedicated to pick up of take-out orders only in order to reduce the time patrons are utilizing the available parking. 2. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including any increase in square footage, improvements including new building construction, and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the City Planner prior to submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The City Planner may determine that modifications or intensifications of use require that this Conditional Use Permit be modified and/or an updated environmental analysis be completed as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. All temporary events shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approval by the City Planner prior to submittal of documents for construction, commencement of the activity or event, and/or issuance of a business license. Chapter 17.104 (Temporary Uses). 4. Add your condition here! 5. Per Section 17.66 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the applicant shall comply with all performance standards including, but not limited to, noise and vibration standards. 6. If operation of this Conditional Use Permit causes adverse effects upon adjacent residences, businesses, or operations including, but not limited to noise, loitering, parking, or disturbances, or if any of the Conditions of Approval are not fulfilled properly, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the City Planner for consideration and possible suspension, modification or revocation. Pnrtad 6112;2017 vN'N.CityofRC.us D7 Pg 63 Project #: DRC2016-00021 DRC2016-00022 Project Name: Location: Project Type: Haven Village Expansion 6417 HAVEN AVE - 020127223-0000 Conditional Use Permit Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT., Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 8. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 9. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 10. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans it effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. Printed:6;12/?017 wmv.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 2 D7 Pg 64