Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-11 Agenda Packet - PC-HPC DECEMBER 11, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 1 of 4 A. 7:00 P.M. – CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo _____ Vice Chairman Oaxaca _____ Commissioner Dopp _____ Commissioner Morales _____ Commissioner Williams _____ B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes November 13, 2019. C2. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2017-00244 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 – PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single- DECEMBER 11, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 2 of 4 family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage and a request to construct retaining walls up to 5-feet and 2-inches high on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SUBTPM20006 – MICHAEL MORRIS OF REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER – A request to subdivide 13.6 acres of land for four (4) separate parcels in conjunction with a proposal to develop the site with four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street – APN: 0209-211-24. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00529 – MICHAEL MORRIS OF REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER - A request to develop the site with four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street – APN: 0209-211-24. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 13, 2019 HPC/PC MEETING. E. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS: COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: DECEMBER 11, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 3 of 4 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. F. ADJOURNMENT I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 5, 2019, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Comments.” There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. 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. DECEMBER 11, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 4 of 4 AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,114 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Vicinity Map Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2019 C1: HDR DRC2017-00244 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 D1: SUBTPM20006 & DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00529 C1 D1-D2 D1 NOVEMBER 13, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 1 of 7 A. 7:00 P.M. – CALL TO ORDER 7:02pm Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo _x____ Vice Chairman (vacant) _____ Commissioner Oaxaca _x____ Commissioner Dopp _x____ Commissioner Morales _x____ Commissioner Williams _x____ Additional Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Sean McPherson, Senior Planner; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. David Eoff, Sr. Planner. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Ms. Luana Hernandez spoke to the Planning Commission to find out why it’s taking so long to finish the project to the west of the Richfield Service Station on Foothill Rt. 66. She would like to know how long it will take to finish. NOVEMBER 13, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 2 of 7 Anne McIntosh, Planning Director will follow-up with Ms. Hernandez after 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 October 23, 2019. Moved by Oaxaca, second by Dopp; carried 3-0-2 Abstain (Williams and Morales abstain) D. SCHEDULED MATTERS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chairman may open the meeting for public input. D1. SELECTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION/PLANNING COMMISSION VICE- CHAIRMAN OFFICER POSITION; SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATE FOR THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE; SELECTION OF A COMMITTEE MEMBER AND ALTERNATE FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE; AND SELECT A PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE MEMBER. Commissioner Oaxaca was appointed unanimously as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion to approve by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Morales; carried 5-0-0. Commissioner Williams was appointed unanimously as member to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Dopp was appointed unanimously as first alternate. Motion to approve by Commissioner Williams, second by Vice-Chairman Oaxaca; carried 5-0-0. Commissioner Morales was appointed unanimously as member to the Trails Advisory Committee. Motion to approve by Commissioner Dopp, second by Chairman Guglielmo; carried 5-0-0. NOVEMBER 13, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Dopp was appointed unanimously as member to the Public Art Committee. Motion to approve by Vice-Chairman Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Williams; carried 5-0-0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. E1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTPM20034, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-01011, MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00465 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2017-01003, – RICK BELL FOR ARTIS SENIOR LIVING – A request to subdivide a 3.59 acre project site into two (2) parcels, to construct and operate a 72-bed residential care facility totaling 43,375 square feet, and to request an increase in height for walls/fences up to 8 feet total for security purposes within the Low (L) Residential District at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Banyan Street; APN: 0201-821-51. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, gave the Staff Report and Power Point presentation (copy on file). Motion to approve by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Williams; carried 5-0-0 E2. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2019-00228 – NH WEAVER LANE, LLC – A request to modify Engineering Condition of Approval #2 related Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377 for an approved 26-lot subdivision on 18.2 acres of land located on the east side of Carnelian Street and north of Hillside Road in the Very Low (VL) Residential District (.1–2 Dwelling Units Per Acre) in the Hillside Overlay District and the Equestrian Overlay District. Related to files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042, Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377, Variance DRC2016-00748, Variance DRC2017-00014, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00376. On June 14, 2017, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for the project. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15162(a) provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is NOVEMBER 13, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 4 of 7 required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, gave the Staff Report and Power Point presentation (copy on file). Motion to approve by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Dopp; carried 5-0-0. E3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SUBTPM20006 – MICHAEL MORRIS OF REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER – A request to subdivide 13.6 acres of land for four (4) separate parcels in conjunction with a proposal to develop the site with four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street – APN: 0209-211-24. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00529 – MICHAEL MORRIS OF REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER - A request to develop the site with four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street – APN: 0209-211-24. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDS CONTINUING THESE ITEMS TO DECEMBER 11, 2019. Mike Smith, Principal Planner, gave the Staff Report and Power Point presentation (copy on file). Motion to approve by Vice-Chairman Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Morales, carried 5-0-0 to continue the item to the December 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. E4. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 – PAUL BARDOS – Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single- family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage and a request to construct retaining walls up to 5-feet and 2-inches high on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera – APN: 0207-631-03. NOVEMBER 13, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 5 of 7 This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which permits the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, gave the Staff Report and Power Point presentation (copy on file). Applicant Paul Bardos presented a PowerPoint slideshow. Presentation received and filed and entered into the record. Public comment was received from 6 individuals. Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Vice-Chairman Oaxaca; carried 5-0-0 directing Staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial of the Project for the Commission’s to adopt at its December 11, 2019 regular meeting. F. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director mentioned due to the Holidays, November 27th and December 25th meetings have been cancelled. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Vice-Chairman Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Morales to adjourn the meeting; carried 5-0-0. 9:55pm I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 7, 2019, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. NOVEMBER 13, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 6 of 7 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the 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. NOVEMBER 13, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 7 of 7 APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,114 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. 001 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2017-00244 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 – PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage and a request to construct retaining walls up to 5-feet and 2-inches high on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 through the adoption of the attached resolutions of denial. PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: Hillside Development Review DRC2018-00473 and minor exception on DRC2018-00473 was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the November 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, staff presented an overview of the project, the applicant responded to staff comments and the public was provided time to comment on the project. The Planning Commission closed said meeting, deliberated and voted 5-0 to have staff draft resolution of denial for the subject entitlements for their action at the next Planning Commission meeting. ANALYSIS: A detailed description and analysis of the project has been provided in the Staff Report that was presented to Planning Commission on November 13, 2019. DATE: December 11, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner 002 001 RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2017-00244 - A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 4,118 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 771 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 15,430 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 8035 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc., filed an application for Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Hillside Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduced a noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 11, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot, two-story single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the “project”); and b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Hillside Overlay District North Existing Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Hillside Overlay District 003 002 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 HDR DRC2017-00244– BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 2 South Pacific Electric Trail Public Mixed-Use (MU) District East Vacant Land Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Hillside Overlay District West Existing Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Hillside Overlay District c. While the proposed project generally conforms to the minimum development requirements of the Hillside Design Standards, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not in character with the surrounding neighborhood and existing residences along Camino Predera for the following reasons: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots. Twenty-one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staff’s review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract, the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet. The size of the proposed project’s living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks (374 square feet proposed), to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project’s size increases to 5,263 square feet. For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood’s character. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback, thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet (Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the “design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot’s size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views.” The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks, would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape therefore establishing an adverse precedent. As a result, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance. 3. General Plan Compatibility: The Planning Commission finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to “promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas.” The proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development which contributes “positively” to the surrounding residential neighborhood. This is based on the following factors: (1) as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family 004 003 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 HDR DRC2017-00244– BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 3 homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project’s side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera. In addition, the Planning Commission recognizes the comments received from neighborhood residents that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood’s small single-family homes. Such comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. The Planning Commission finds that the increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the neighborhood’s character and its negative impact on development that contributes positively to the neighborhood. 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan, specifically General Plan Policy LU-2.4. The General Plan encourages complementary infill development (General Plan Policy LU-2.4). The proposed residence is not complementary to the surrounding development as it is significantly larger than the other residences in Tract 10035. At 4,889 square feet include living and garage area, it is 977 square feet larger than the average residence in Tract 10035 (3,912 square feet) and provides side yard setbacks that are not compatible with the Hillside Development Ordinance. b. The proposed use is not in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is not in accord with the objectives of Section 17.122.020 (Hillside Development) of the Development Code which states that the hillside design standards and guidelines are intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas. The proposed single-family residence is incompatible with the other single-family residences as it significantly larger (977 square feet) than the existing and approved residences in Tract 10035 and is proposed at the minimum side yard setbacks (5 and 10 feet) in conflict Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures. In addition, the project does not conform to the maximum height restriction for retaining walls in the Hillside Overlay Zone. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g., retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height, although within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. In this case, the project proposes retaining walls of up to five feet, two inches in height. By separate resolution, the Planning Commission has denied a proposed minor exception to permit the additional retaining wall height above the height limit permitting by the Development Code. Accordingly, the project does not comply with the retaining wall height limit in the Development Code. c. The proposed use is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project is not in accord with the Development Code as the project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District which was intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas. The project proposes to construct a single-family residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, in conflict with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures, etc. The existing residence to the west is also constructed at the minimum side yard setback, increasing the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape. d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the 005 004 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 HDR DRC2017-00244– BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 4 vicinity. The proposed single-family residence is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, and all of the evidence in the record, this Commission hereby denies Hillside Development Review DRC2017-00244 and the project proposed by the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF December 2019. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December 2019, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 006 005 RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 - A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS UP TO 5-FEET AND 2-INCHES HIGH FOR A 4,118 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 771 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 15,430 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 8035 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc., filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2018-00473, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduced a noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 11, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot, three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the “project”); and b. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g., retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height within the Hillside Overlay Zone, although within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. c. The application is for a Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473) to permit the project’s proposed retaining walls to be over the 4 foot maximum height limit (five feet, two inches proposed). The project site is within the Hillside Overlay Zone. 007 006 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473– BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 2 d. The Planning Commission makes the following findings in support of its decision to deny the application: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots. Twenty-one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staff’s review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract, the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet. The size of the proposed project’s living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks (374 square feet proposed), to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project’s size increases to 5,263 square feet. For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood’s character. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback, thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet (Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the “design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot’s size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views.” The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks, would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape therefore establishing an adverse precedent. As a result, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance. General Plan Compatibility: The Planning Commission finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to “promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas.” The proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development which contributes “positively” to the surrounding residential neighborhood. This is based on the following factors: (1) as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project’s side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera. In addition, the Planning Commission recognizes the comments received from neighborhood residents that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood’s small single-family homes. Such comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. The Planning Commission finds that the increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the 008 007 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473– BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 3 neighborhood’s character and its negative impact on development that contributes positively to the neighborhood. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or Development Agreement. The proposed Minor Exception to permit additional retaining wall height is not consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages complementary infill development (General Plan Policy LU-2.4). The related design review (DRC2017-00244) is for a 4,118 square foot single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average house size within Tract 10035 (based on the existing and approved residences within the Tract 10035). The proposed building size along with the proposed building setbacks creates the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. b. The proposed development is not compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. For the reasons stated above, the proposed single-family residence is not compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area as it is significantly larger than the other residences in the same tract (Tract 10035) and is proposed to be constructed at the minimum side yard setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding the lot and increasing the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. c. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is not necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The necessity for retaining walls above the height limit can be mitigated by reducing the size of the proposed residence and by increasing the side yard setbacks. d. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege as the additional retaining wall height is related to a proposed single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks. The City has been contacted by property owners in the surrounding neighborhood who are opposed to the project based on the size of the proposed residence, the height of the residence above curb face on Camino Predera and the width of the project (built at minimum setbacks). 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, and all of the evidence in the record, this Commission hereby denies Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 and the project proposed by the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 009 008 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473– BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF December 2019. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December 2019, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 010 009 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20006 – REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY - A request to subdivide 13.6 acres of land into four (4) separate parcels in conjunction with a proposal to develop the site with four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street – APN: 0209-211-24. Related file: Design Review DRC208-00529. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00529 – REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY - A request to develop the site with four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street – APN: 0209-211-24. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: • Approve SUBTPM2006 and Design Review DRC2018-00529 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: The subject applications were duly advertised for the Planning Commission public hearing that was scheduled for November 13, 2019. Associated with these applications is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that was circulated for review and comment on October 9, 2019. CDs, that contain the IS/MND, were sent to the State Clearinghouse as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and various other agencies and entities, and members of the public. However, due to a technical error with the preparation of the CDs, the associated technical documents used in the environmental analysis of the project were not included on the CDs. DATE: December 11, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Mike Smith, Principal Planner 011 010 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM20006 AND DR DRC2018-00529 – REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 2 To comply with CEQA, new CDs were prepared and sent to the State Clearinghouse (and the other entities) on November 6, 2019. Because of this issue, the City could not conduct the public hearing for the project on November 13, 2019 as originally scheduled. CEQA requires a minimum 30-day circulation period prior to the public hearing for a project. Staff requested, and the Planning Commission granted, a Continuance of the advertised public hearing to December 11, 2019 (Exhibit U). PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of 13.6 acres. The irregularly shaped project site has street frontage along Archibald Avenue, 7th Street, and minimal frontage along Acacia Street. The site is generally level with a slight gradient from north to south (Exhibit A). There are no trees on the site and vegetation/ground cover is very limited. Public improvements such as sidewalk, curb, gutter, etc. are not present along the street frontages. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District North Industrial/Manufacturing Building General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District South Industrial/Manufacturing Building General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District East Industrial/Manufacturing Facility General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District West Industrial/Warehouse Buildings General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing vacant site into four (4) separate parcels (Exhibit C) and construct four (4) separate warehouse distribution buildings (one building per parcel) (Exhibits D, E, and F). The area of the parcels and the floor area of the buildings are as follows: Parcel Area (Acres) Building Floor Area (Square Feet) 1 1.03 1 17,300 2 1.14 2 14,750 3 4.69 3 74,660 4 5.98 4 124,000 Based on a review of the Site and Floor Plans, there is the potential that Buildings 3 and 4 could be “subdivided” internally to allow for multiple, smaller tenants, i.e. not occupied by one single tenant (Exhibit H). Tenants for the buildings have not been identified at this time. Since the buildings exceed 50,000 square feet in floor area, activities within this building would be classified as "Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Medium." The proposed project has a layout and building floor plans that are typical for this use. Office areas for the 012 011 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM20006 AND DR DRC2018-00529 – REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 3 buildings will face toward the Acacia and 7th Street frontages, with dock loading/storage areas located facing inward toward the project site, screened by the proposed buildings. There will be six points of vehicular access via two driveways located on Acacia Street and four driveways proposed along 7th Street (Exhibit B). The proposed buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of two colors (off white “ice” and shades of grey). The buildings will have vertical formlined concrete panels at various locations. An additional primary material will be aluminum canopies while a secondary material will be glass panels. As the uses expected within the buildings are to be logistics oriented, to maximize the efficiency of the interior space there is limited articulation of the wall planes. Nevertheless, there will be prominent horizontal and vertical reveals/scoring on all elevations. In the office areas, there are generous amounts of glass and formlined panels (Exhibits J and K). As demonstrated in the table below, the project complies with all pertinent technical standards related to building height, site coverage, and front/rear setbacks. The project also complies with the landscaping requirements as prescribed in the Development Code. The distribution of landscaping will be generally along the street frontages, along the perimeter of the project site, and within the primary north-south drive aisle for the project. Development Standard Required Proposed Building Height Max. 70’ 41’-4” Floor Area Ratio 50-60% 43% Front (Major Arterial; Archibald Avenue) Min. 45’ 48’ on Archibald Front (Local; Acacia Street and 7th Street) Min. 25’ Min. 25’ Side Yard Setback Min. 5’ Min. 5’ Rear Yard Setback Min. 0’ Min. 5’ Landscape Percentage Min. 10% 11.9% B. Parking: Per Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, the parking requirement is based on the proposed mix of office and warehouse floor areas in the buildings. The project is required to have 96 vehicle parking spaces as shown in the table below: Type of Use Floor Area (Square Feet) Parking Ratio Number of Spaces Required Number of Spaces Proposed Proposed for 4 Buildings (overall) 240,710 n/a n/a n/a Office 29,000 1/250 116 see below Warehouse 211,710 Varies1 121 see below Total Required/Total Provided: 237/2372 1 - For warehouse uses, the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; and 1 space per 4,000 square feet for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet; 2 - The trailer parking requirement is calculated separately from the standard parking requirement and is based on a ratio of one stall per dock door. Thirty-seven (37) spaces are required and thirty-seven (37) spaces are proposed. 013 012 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM20006 AND DR DRC2018-00529 – REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 4 C. Rail Spur: An existing north-south rail line is located along the east perimeter of the site. Therefore, per Section 17.36.040.D.6 of the Development Code, the property is required to demonstrate how the project could have a functional/practical rail service if it is decided by the applicant and/or future owner/tenant that it is necessary or if it is desired. The applicant is not required to construct the rail spur or any improvements associated with the rail spur. The applicant has prepared a Site Plan (Exhibit G) that shows a conceptual rail spur that could serve the project. The rail spur would enter the site at its northeast corner and be aligned north-south along the east side of the site. The spur would “serve” Building 4, i.e. the spur would be immediately adjacent to the east side of that building. Due to the geometry of the existing rail line and other physical limitations, it is not possible for Building 3 to have rail service. Buildings 1 and 2 will likely be used as industrial office buildings and, therefore, rail service for them is not warranted. This “alternate” Site Plan shows that if the rail spur is constructed, the most significant changes would be new dock doors on the east elevation of Building 4 and minor modifications to the site where the spur will be located (such relocation of parking stalls and minor reduction in the landscape coverage for the site. The floor area of the building would remain the same. D. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Wimberly, Guglielmo, and Smith) on July 16, 2019. No major or secondary issues were discussed, as reflected in the Design Review Committee Comments (Exhibit O). The Committee recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. E. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on July 16, 2019. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommended approval. The Committee recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Their conditions of approval are included in the attached Resolution of Approval. F. Neighborhood Meeting: A Neighborhood Meeting was conducted at the Iglesia La Roca Fellowship Church located at 9757 7th Street, Suite 812 on July 11, 2019. Notifications for the meeting were sent to all owners of property within 660 feet of the project site. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information about the project, receive comments, and answer project related questions. No property owners, residents, or others from the public attended the meeting. G. Public Art: This project is required to provide public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Based on the industrial square footage of the project, the total art value required per Section 17.124.020.C. is $240,710. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that requires the public art requirement to be met prior to occupancy. H. Tribal Consultation (Assembly Bill 52): As required by Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), the City submitted Tribal Consultation requests to six (6) Tribal Governments: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; Soboba Band of 014 013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM20006 AND DR DRC2018-00529 – REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 5 Luiseno Indians; and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians following a completeness determination for Design Review DRC2018-00529. The notices were mailed on June 11, 2019. A 30-day period for responses to the requests for consultations to be received ended on July 11, 2019. During the comment period, Staff received responses from three (3) Tribal Governments: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. The Morongo Band of Mission indicated that they had no additional information to provide regarding the consultation. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requested that mitigation measures be applied to the project. These mitigation measures have been included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Should any undocumented archaeological or cultural resources be discovered during grading activities, adherence to the mitigation measures will ensure that all impacts will be less than significant. I. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project was prepared (Exhibit T). Based on the findings contained in that IS, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to, for example, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, 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 (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program was also prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. During the 30-day review public comment period, Staff received a comment letter from Lozeau Drury, LLP on October 23, 2019. The letter expressed issues with the IS/MND and cited concerns with the mitigation measures (Exhibit P) identified in the IS/MND. Emails were also received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on October 23 and 24, 2019, respectively. Both emails contained requests for certain appendices associated with the technical studies used in the environmental analysis of the project. The information was provided to these agencies as requested. These agencies subsequently provided comment letters. The comment letters (Exhibit Q and R were forwarded to the applicant’s environmental consultant. The consultant’s responses to these comments are attached (Exhibit S) As noted above in the “Project Review Background” section above, the IS/MND was recirculated on November 6, 2019 to address technical errors that occurred during the first circulation of the environmental document. To date, no additional comments have been received during the second 30-day review public comment period that was provided. Overall, Staff has reviewed the comments from the above-noted entities, and the applicant’s consultant’s responses to them, and has concluded that no revisions to, and/or recirculation of, the IS/MND is required in response. 015 014 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM20006 AND DR DRC2018-00529 – REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 6 FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, and police services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: MID AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING One of the City’s Council goals is to revitalize underutilized areas and enhance industrial land uses. The proposed warehouse/distribution building will fill a vacant, under-utilized parcel and enhance the existing industrial area along 7th Street and Center Avenue towards the southern portion of the City. Approval of the proposed building will permit the area to develop as a General Industrial (GI) District as specified in the General Plan and Development Code. The development of a warehouse/distribution building enhances our Premier Community Status by providing a well- designed warehouse building that is complementary to the surrounding warehouse distribution and manufacturing uses in the surrounding area providing additional employment opportunities for our residents and the region. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. To date, no written correspondence, phone calls, or in person inquiries have been received in response to these notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Map Exhibit B - Overall Site Plan Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006 Exhibit D - Detail Site Plan (Buildings 1 and 2) Exhibit E - Detail Site Plan (Building 3) Exhibit F - Detail Site Plan (Building 4) Exhibit G - Alternate Overall Site Plan for Rail Service Exhibit H - Floor Plans Exhibit I - Roof Plans Exhibit J - Building Elevations Exhibit K - Colored Building Elevations and Perspectives Exhibit L - Landscape Plans Exhibit M - Construction Phasing Plan Exhibit N - Conceptual Grading Plan and Sections Exhibit O - Design Review Committee Comments Exhibit P - Comments Letter – Lozeau Drury, LLP Exhibit Q - Comments Letter – South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 016 015 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM20006 AND DR DRC2018-00529 – REDROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 7 Exhibit R - Comments Letter – California Air Resources Board (CARB) Exhibit S - Responses to Comments (prepared by the Applicant’s Environmental Consultant) Exhibit T - Initial Study Parts 2 and 3 with Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit U - Staff Report for Planning Commission (November 13, 2019) - Continuance Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2018-00529 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006 017 016 EXHIBIT A018017 ·······················EXHIBIT B019018 EXHIBIT C020019 EXHIBIT D021020 EXHIBIT E022021 EXHIBIT F023022 EXHIBIT G024023 EXHIBIT H025024 ,..,-v , ------- GENERAL NOTES 1.THIS BUILDING IS DESIGNED FOR HIGH-PILE STORAGE. A SEPARATE PERMIT WILL BEREQUIRED FOR ANY RACKING/CONVEYOR SYSTEMS.2.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE PANEL WALL, GRIDUNE, OR FACE OFFINISHED WALL (U.N.O.).3.WAREHOUSE INTERIOR WALLS TO BE PAINTED lll11TE: COLUMNS TO BE PRIMED.4.SLOPE POUR STRIP 1 /2" TO EXTERIOR AT ALL PERSONAL EXITS. SEE "S" DRAWINGSFOR POUR STRIP LOCATION. 5.STEEL GIRDERS, TRUSSES AND LEDGERS SHALL BE PRIMED LIGHT GRAY.6.PROVIDE SIGN ON INSIDE OF EXTERIOR DOORS STATING "EXIT CONTAINS A STAIR" ATALL REQUIRED AND NON-REQUIRED EXITS THAT ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE BY A RAMP. EXIT ONLY DOORS WHICH ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE DISABLED SHALL NOT HAVE ENTRY HARDWARE. 7.PROVIDE A "NO SMOKING WITHIN 25 FEET OF BUILDING" SIGN AT BUILDING ENTRIES, OUTDOOR AIR INTAKES AND OPERABLE WINDOWS (EXCEPT EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY AND ELECTRICAL/UTILITY ROOMS). 8 .ADEQUATE NUMBER OF PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE TABLE 422.1 PRIOR TO CERTIFI CATE OF OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING OR THE RESPECTIVE TENANT SPACE. 9.BUILDING SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.1 0.FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE PROVIDED PER 2013 CFC.11 .FIRE HOSE LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED PER FIRE DEPARTIMENT.1 2.REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR FLOOR DRAIN WHERE OCCURS.13.EXIT SIGNS SHALL BE READILY VISIBLE FROM ANY DIRECTI ON OF EGRESS TRAVEL.EXIT SIGNS SHALL BE LOCATED AS NECESSARY TO CLEARLY INDICATE THE DIRECTIONOF EGRESS TRAVEL14.EXIT SIGNS SHALL BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED W/ SECONDARYPOWER SOURCE.1 5.ANY TIME A BUILDING OR A PORTION OF A BUILDING IS OCCUPIED, THE MEANS OFEGRESS SERVING THE OCCUPIED PORTION SHALL BE ILLUMINATED AT AN INTENSITYOF NOT LESS THAN 1-FOOT-CANDLE (11 LUX) AT THE WALKING SURFACE LEVEL.1 6.THE POWER SUPPLY FOR MEANS OF EGRESS IULUMINA TION SHALL BE PROVIDED BYTHE PREMISES' ELECTRICAL SUPPLY. IN THE EVENT OF POWER SUPPLY FAILURE,ILLUMINATION SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDED FROM AN EMERGENCY SYSTEMFOR THE FOLLOWING AREAS:A.AISILES AND UNENCLOSED EGRESS STAIRWAYS IN ROOMS AND SPACES THATREQUIRE TWO OR MORE MEANS OF EGRESSB.EXTERIOR LANDINGS, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 1 008.1 .6, FOR EXI T DISCHARGEDOORWAYS IN BUILDINGS REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO OR MORE EXITS27.EMERGENCY LIGHTING FACILITIES SHALL BE ARRANGED TO PROVIDE INITIALILLUMINATION THAT IS AT LEAST AN AVERAGE OF 1-FOOT-CANDLE (11 LUX) AND AMINIMUM AT ANY POI NT OF 0.1 -FOOT-CANDLE (1 LUX) MEASURED ALONG THE PATHOF EGRESS AT FLOOR LEVEL A MAXIMUM-TO-MINIMUM ILLUMINATION UNIFORMITYRATIO OF 40 TO 1 SHALL NOT BE EXCEEDED. ---- KEYNOTES 1.0 GENERAL I. 1 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR OFFICE 3.0 CONCRETE 3.1 TILT-UP CONCRETE BUILDING WALL 3.2 CONCRETE STAIR W/ HANDRAIL & 42" GUARDRAIL 3.3 CONCRETE STAIR W/ HANDRAIL 5.0 METALS 5.1 CONCRETE-FILLED STEEL PIPE PROTECTION BOLLARD, PAINTED, TYPICAL 5.2 STRUCT. STEEL COLUMN, TYPICAL -SHOP PRIMED (FIELD PAINTED) 5.3 METAL CANOPY ABOVE 8 .0 OPENINGS 8 .1 EXTRUDED ALUMINUM AND GLASS STOREFRONT 8 .2 ALUMINUM AND GLASS ENTRY DOOR 8 .3 HOLLOW METAL MAN DOOR, PAINTED 8 .4 9'W x 1 0'H OVERHEAD SECTIONAL DOCK DOOR, PAINTED 8 .5 12'W x 14'H OVERHEAD SECTIONAL GRADE DOOR, PAINTED 9.0 FI NISHES 9.1 INTERIOR PARTITION TYP. 11 .0 EQUIPMENT 11 .1 DOCK BUMPERS -COORDINATE W/ MANUFACTURER & STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 1 2.0 FURNISHINGS 12.1 BICYCLE RACK PER CAL GREEN LONG-TERM REQUIREMENTS -�Ill//.,,,,,-----' ��/ -1----i +----l _/ 11_[ -- � --==----==.:=��-------== � - --7)--�-�---0 __ --cp -----✓✓ Q)!SJ !SJ�� /�J n�liBTI �8!1 1 w �1 � ��� 1�8.J-1_J a_8l1 1 I �tJJl/�J ll:i /$:i i� Gr vJ�I @� � .<_,.l , ----------- - - _ _ ,- -1, v:J 11 11 , 1 �15.3 1 1 1 , 1, 629' , 1 � 1 r Ir � 1 1 t--,� :r i\3 i\3 1 1, , � 1 81 � 1,Cill\ , ,. u· ' 52' i. 52'' I I f,6oj I II IIA I I I 44' I I i. I I 44 '1 I I I I 48' I I i. I I V,sii I II II� I I I 6' I I I i. I I 148"· 1-1 I i. I I 52· I I I I 52 1/ A I ri•! 25' \ ,. -1-6' 1,-2;r 7,·' 6'··4' ·il' 6'14' 6' 26' -1· -10'-9" 06' 9• -6' ...1...14 !........I.,!;' J--9'!-·4\ s· -'-'L 1iH.�-, 1 ,r iJ5• .,J5, .. 4 c L5' 3<L0. _L1,4'--..i 6' L--20 '-...J. 0'-'6"30'-6" J5• ,:1..1-14 • '6' ,,5>'..j.'-6 ;-�, 1,11'=;' ,u, · ,J6' :J5'. .. 4 '.L5' :L5' _j_14 �_J_ 6' .1._____23•-5"__J___l_23'.!,l:.......±,__j_23 •-51...__15• .....L14 " --6' 1_5• .4' _5• !'J' 6' �:·�_J 22�� 6' .\ 1 0--4. I ���1���----,-1-ffi □7 I I I 'I □El'........L_:i __ '�[;lt��bl,---·----i □ f'\ I i ,-i □�::r..:r:1-�fd,t,� -1,-------nl I i I � -=;:;-i-::--==£:'i:��'-Jr--lrlr=' _\ r:t 1 -�\AII .. I t-�. IL4,J_JI II I I -�I • � ! ·-, -, •! ! � • r-' -, I -,�F'.".'11 _..JXJ�-I r � . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 , II--I, -• \_.I_ _ r -,-�j I I I '-{TI] 1i \ I I I I 1i 1 \ Y 3.1 I I I I I 1i 1 \ I 3.1 I i 11 �� " = i\ 1\, _ ....-, : � I '-om I � � I '-om I � � I '-om I � I I I� I � I ;� ;� I I � ;� I 1 ;� -'-\ ' -\ I � �Q _,..._1 PROPOSED OFFICE I I 1 1 I PROPOSED OFFICE PROPOSED OFFICE I 1 1 1 I PROPOSED OFFlCE PROPOSED OFFICE I 1 1 1 PROPOSED OFFIC I .I-•I I II I I I I I I I I 'fi1.. I, I I I I I I I •.,111-.... u "' ¾·•--- �1-1�1 � 1sl I c, 5.2 I 3.1 I ----- 9.1 0 0 &3 I I I I L I I;\"' L..J I I I L,. _J I I I - - - - -1 - -• ----------1:1 ----- -----1:1 \ \ __ ,I ----I ---- ,I , --I ----,I ----I ---- ,I , ----I 5 5.2 I I I I I 11 · 1�\\9.1 :1 \.r 9.1 I � 9.1 I 9.1 I 010 N ,&, 0 ©--rL!_ ... ... \ \ i" • t;;i'',�-o·••••• •"0 =&3 ... -.-I -·-... ... ========;i O I O f.::::::==:==:==: : • ... ... ... � 11 '=1 °'1 L/ 1�-I -1 I I I:] 1:1 ..I . 1:1 \.., I:] =J II� :-·� I i l.OTIJ l{EJ i lF,I 'Y 8!5 I I l.OTIJ W 8.4 I i � i =�-=© I \ L[iliJ \ \ ' II �1 8.4 I I I I ' I I I I I I -I I --____ , __ 1 ' ' I \ ,, I I \ \ \ __ I_ \ \ \ \ \ I 11 II II I lr·,1r·, r·,r-,1 \! \ \ \ \ \ \ !\ \ I I \ ' \\ \ \ \ \ I 11 II II I I II II II I L-.d b.-.J L.-.JL_.J ' ' ' I I I I I "-"--j c.JL__ I I I' I fl7--r 0\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ •Y,I I. 26' I.26'J.26'I.26' J J.\I 21 ' \I ' \;26'26' 26' 23' I �'� \ 26'I. 26' ---22' I. \ 26' \26' I.26'26' '\I 26' \I \I 26'26' I \l26' \I 26' 26' I 2$' :.11 I 'jl 1 46' 1 52°1 O< I. 60' I.44 'C 44 ' 1 � -C ' 1 56' � C -1 8'-�! ' ' , 25' I� m � !I 1 1 1 1 1 1 631' 1 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0 © © 0 © 0 0 0 0 © 0 @ @ � � ,.' 'L---.J r ---7 ' '1,. ___ .J r---, ' '1,. ___ .J ;---,!jI �? "' � I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I , I , I/ � �-,&. �-,&. J ,t ?.r '.>. -i".r ,,,. -?.r '.>. ?._r ,,,. ��. . , I I I I I I I I I I ,I;,. • 1 ?�'.>. �,,. ,.,. 4,' �';, �7 - - I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I / I / I I • • • �-�-��--��--�-�'; b===.!;f;!,==�d ,.,_c:,· '==== �� IN I \II �1 FLOOR PLAN 1·=20'-o" I 1 _, � � - AA ARCHITECTS 8811 Research Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 T, 949 474 1775 F, 949 553 9133 a: w 1-z w (.) z 0 -I­::) ::::) �wa:II-­OU) (J)O t-w WO a: C'? t- r-,.. CJ) 0) I <(tu-ad <( wel:::::, zzO w � ><( <( (.) 0 :::::, ...J (.) <Co al I IU uz a:<(<(C: >­z <( a.. � 0 (.) t­z w .. � a:w Oc, LL <( oz w<C a..� 0 ...J :::::, ww>Iwu QC/) PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT # SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 NO. DESCRFIKIN 6 DESIGN REVI EW SUBM I TTAL 6 DESIGN REVI EW SUBM I TTAL - 2ND 6 DESIGN REVI EW -RAI L SPUR PLAN 6 DESIGN REVI EW -RAIL SPUR PLAN (2) 6 DESIGN REVI EW -RAI L SPUR PLAN (3) 6 DESIGN REVI EW -HEIGHT REVI SI ONS BUILDING 3 FLOOR PLAN DATE 6/15/1 8 04/04/19 05/08/19 05/17/19 06/3/19 11/13/1 9 ALL DRA'MNGS AND 'M?ITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HER£1N CONSRTUJf 11-/E OR/Gf/'./AL AND UNPUBUSI-IED KORK OF THE ARCl-l/1ECT AND Tl-IE SAM£ MAY NOT BE DUPLJCA fill, USED OR DISCLOSED NTHOOT THE EXPRESS ltflJTTrN CONSENT CF THE ARCH/TE:CT. @ GM ARCH/lfCJS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. JOB NO RRD009.01 8IEET NO, DAT6 3/9/1 8 DRAWN, GAA A2.2 FLE NAl,I:, RRD009_2.2 026 025 027026 EXHIBIT I028027 029028 030029 EXHIBIT J031030 032031 033032 EXHIBIT K034033 035034 036035 037036 038037 039038 Brisbane BoxTristania confertaTREES24" BoxAfrican SumacRhus lancea13LLondon PlanePlatanus acerifoliaBOTANICAL/COMMON NAMESYMBOL PLANTING LEGENDWUCOLSSIZE QTYREMARKSM7715 GalStandard28MStandardChilopsis linearisDesert WillowL1324" BoxMultiChitalpa tashkentensisChitalpaL2524" BoxStandardPyrus c. 'BradfordiBradford Pear15 GalStandard3MStandard15 Gal1 GalACCENTSGROUNDCOVER48" O.C.1 GalRosmarinus o. 'Huntington Carpet'Autumn SageSalvia greggiiLL5 GalM2'SPACINGSIZEREMARKSSYMBOL SHRUBSBOTANICAL/COMMON NAMEWUCOLSSIZEREMARKSSYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAMEWUCOLSSPACINGSIZEREMARKSSYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAMEWUCOLSLProstrate Rosemary1 Gal 30" O.C.Hesperaloe parvifloraRed YuccaTexas PrivetLigustrum j. TexanumBuxus j. Green Beauty'Japanese BoxwoodYellow Day LilyHemerocallis hybridus-YellowLonicera j. 'Halliana'Hall's HoneysuckleCarissa macrocarpa 'Tuttle'Natal PlumRhaphiolepis i. 'Clara'Indian HawthornIndian HawthornRhaphiolepis i. 'Springtime'Star JasmineTrachelopspermum jasminiodesMyoporumMyoporum parvifolium24" O.C.1 GalMRosa 'Flower Carpet' -RedRed Flower Carpet Rose24" O.C.1 GalM48" O.C.1 GalLL1 Gal 36" O.C.12" O.C.4" PotsSenecio mandraliscaeMBlue FingersCoral AloeAloe striataLantana 'Gold Mound'Yellow LantanaAgave5 GalLAgave victoria-reginae1 GalL5 GalLRuffles EcheveriaEcheveria 'Ruffles'5 GalL5 GalL5 GalM3'5 GalM3'5 GalM3'5 GalM3'Callistemon 'Little John'Dwarf Bottle Brush5 GalM3'ArtemisiaArtemisia 'Powis Castle'Bear's BreechAcanthus mollis5 GalM3'5 GalL2'5 GalL3'5 GalLAgave 'Blue Flame'Blue Flame Agave5 GalLAgave 'Blue GlowBlue Glow AgaveDianellaDianella tasmanica5 GalM3'Dwarf DianellaDianella 'Little Rev'5 GalM2'Pineapple GauvaAcca sellowiana5 GalM3'HedgeHedgeHedgeCistus 'Sunset Pink'Sunset Pink Rockrose5 GalM3'Rancho Cucamonga18-01804.10.18Scheu Management CompanyScheu Business Center020' 40' 80'711 FEE ANA STREET714.986.2400 FAX 714.986.2408PLACENTIA, CA 92870NPrepared by:01.30.1901.31.1902.12.1904.02.1904.05.19EXHIBIT L 040039 EXHIBIT M041040 EXHIBIT N042041 MATCH LINE SEE BELOW MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE 043042 Exhibit O044043 045044 046045 047046 Via Email and U.S. Mail October 23, 2019 Kirt Coury, Project Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 kirt.coury@cityofrc.us Anne McIntosh, Director Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 anne.mcintosh@cityofrc.us City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City.Clerk@CityofRC.us Re: Comment on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Scheu Distribution Center (DRC2018-00529; SUBTPM20006; SCH 2019109040) Dear Mr. Coury, Ms. McIntosh, and City Clerk, I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Scheu Distribution Project (DRC2018-00529; SUBTPM20006; SCH 2019109040) including all actions related or referring to the proposed development of four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet, along with a request to subdivide 13.6 acres of land into four (4) separate parcels, located at 9668 7th Street, on the northeast corner of 7th Street and Archibald Avenue, on APN 0209-211-24 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”). After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude that the IS/MND fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. For example, the project may have significant impacts related to noise, air quality, health risks from diesel particulate matter emission, biological impacts, greenhouse gases, hazardous materials, traffic and other issues. Commenters request that the Planning Department address these shortcomings by preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Project prior to considering approvals for the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997). EXHIBIT P 048 047 October 23, 2019 Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Scheu Distribution Center (DRC2018- 00529; SUBTPM20006; SCH 2019109040) Page 3 of 3 We hereby request that City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) send by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to our firm at the address below notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions, and/or supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from the City, including, but not limited to the following:  Notice of any public hearing in connection with the Project as required by California Planning and Zoning Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65091.  Any and all notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including, but not limited to:  Notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA.  Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is required for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4.  Notices of any addenda prepared to a previously certified or approved EIR.  Notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9.  Notices of preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.  Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.  Notices of approval and/or determination to carry out a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law.  Notices of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law.  Notices of determination that a project is exempt from CEQA, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law.  Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA.  Notice of determination, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21108 or Section 21152. Please note that we are requesting notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092 , 049 048 October 23, 2019 Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Scheu Distribution Center (DRC2018- 00529; SUBTPM20006; SCH 2019109040) Page 3 of 3 which requires agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. Please send notice by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to: Richard Drury Komalpreet Toor Stacey Oborne Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 510 836-4200 richard@lozeaudrury.com komal@lozeaudrury.com stacey@lozeaudrury.com Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Richard Drury Lozeau Drury LLP 050 049 SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: November 13, 2019 kirt.coury@cityofrc.us Kirt Coury, Project Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Scheu Distribution Project (SCH No. 2019109040) South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final MND. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to construct four industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet on 13.23 acres (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located on t he northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to occur over 14 months and will include 4,188 heavy-duty haul truck trips during the grading phase1. Upon review of Figure 2: Vicinity Map in the MND and aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is within 56 feet of the existing sensitive receptors (i.e., residential units)2. The Proposed Project will be operational by 20193. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of the Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis S ection, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to South Coast AQMD’s recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. Based on the analysis, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s regional construction air quality impacts would be significant for VOCs at 116 pounds per day (lbs/day) when compared to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA air quality significance threshold of VOCs from construction, at 75 lbs/day. All other pollutants would be less than significant, including regional NOx emissions at 99 lbs/day during the grading phase of construction, which would be slightly below South Coast AQMD’s CEQA air quality significance threshold of NOx from construction, at 100 lbs/day. With implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1, which requires that building surface area be limited to 14,000 square feet or less per day during the architectural coating and painting of construction, construction VOC emissions would be reduced to less than significant at 68 lbs/day4. The Lead Agency also found that the Proposed Project’s regional and localized operational air quality impacts would be less than significant, and no operational air quality mitigation measures were included5. Although no operational mitigation measures were proposed, the Proposed Project is required to comp ly with the goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan6. These policies include utilizing transportation demand management 1 MND. Project Description. Page 2. 2 Ibid. Page 9. 3 Ibid. Page 2. 4 Ibid. Air Quality. Page 38. 5 Ibid. Page 41. 6 Ibid. Appendix B: Air Quality and GHG Analysis. Page 7-3. EXHIBIT Q 051 050 Kirt Coury November 13, 2019 2 strategies, such as promoting ride-share programs, and increasing the use of alternative fuels and electric vehicles by requiring alternative fueling stations and providing solar ready infrastructure 7. Additionally, the Lead Agency has provided recommendations in the MND, which include encouraging trucks accessing the site to be equipped with the latest and most clean diesel fuel technology such as retrofit engines with particle-trapping filters, to ensure that the Proposed Project does not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations 8. The Lead Agency has also included in the MND discussions on applicable South Coast AQMD rules 9, including Rule 402 – Nuisance10, Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust11, Rule 445 – Wood Burning Devices 12, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings13, Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi-Purpose Solvents14, Rule 1186 – PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations 15, Rule 1303 – New Source Review Requirements16 , and Rule 2202 – On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options 17. South Coast AQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan On March 3, 2017, South Coast AQMD’s Governing Board adopted the 2016 AQMP18, which was later approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on March 23, 2017. Built upon the progress in implementing the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs, the 2016 AQMP provides a regional perspective on air quality and the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin. The most significant air quality challenge in the Basin is to achieve an additional 45 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 2023 and an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment. South Coast AQMD Staff’s General Comments Upon review of the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that daily truck trips during operation that were estimated by CalEEMod are not consistent with the information provided in the Proposed Project- specific Traffic Impact Study (TIS). This could have led to an underestimation of the Proposed Project’s operational air quality impacts from mobile sources. Please see the attachment for more information. Additionally, since operation of the Proposed Project generates and/or attracts heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in the Final MND. Please see the attachment for more information. Finally, to further reduce the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts during construction and operation, and to facilitate the achievement of goals and attainment timelines outlined in the 2016 AQMP, the attachment includes a list of recommended mitigation measures, in addition to MM-AQ-1, that the Lead Agency should review and incorporate in the Final MND. 7 Ibid. Pages 7-3 through 7-6. 8 Ibid. Page 7-0. 9 MND. Appendix B: Air Quality and GHG Analysis. Pages 2-8 through 2-9. 10 South Coast AQMD Rule 402 – Nuisance. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 402.pdf. 11 South Coast AQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 403.pdf. 12 South Coast AQMD Rule 445 – Wood Burning Devices. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/rule-iv/rule-445.pdf 13 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf. 14 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi-Purpose Solvents. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1143.pdf 15 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1186 – PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1186.pdf 16 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1303 – New Source Review Requirements. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/reg-xiii/rule-1303-requirements.pdf 17 South Coast AQMD. Rule 2202 – On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1186.pdf 18 South Coast AQMD. March 3, 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. 052 051 Kirt Coury November 13, 2019 3 Conclusion Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, responses should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project . Further, when the Lead Agency makes the finding that the additional recommended mitigation measures are not feasible, the Lead Agency should describe the specific reasons for rejecting them in the Final MND (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and 15074.1). South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Alina Mullins, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at amullins@aqmd.gov or (909) 396-2402, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment LS:AM SBC191016-03 Control Number 053 052 Kirt Coury November 13, 2019 4 ATTACHMENT Air Quality Analysis – Trip Generation Rate 1. In the TIS for the MND, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project would result in 1,190 daily vehicle trips, of which 8% would be from light-duty trucks, 3.9% would be from medium-duty trucks, and 9.5% would be from heavy-duty trucks. Using this truck fleet mix, the Proposed Project would generate 254 truck trips, consisting of light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty trucks, from 1,190 daily vehicle trips19. However, upon review of the CalEEMod output files in Appendix B: Air Quality and GHG Analysis, South Coast AQMD staff found that the fleet mix that was used in CalEEMod to quantify the Proposed Project’s operational emissions from mobile sources was not consistent with that in the TIS. For General Light Industrial land uses, CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 generates a default fleet mix of 90% from light duty automobiles and other mobile sources (e.g., motorcycles and buses), and 2% from light-duty trucks, 2% from medium-duty trucks, and 6% would be from heavy- duty trucks 20. When the CalEEMod default fleet mix was used, it resulted in 119 truck trips from 1,190 daily vehicle trips 21, which were substantially short of 254 truck trips (See Table 1) and has likely underestimated the Proposed Project’s operational air quality impacts from mobile sources. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use the Proposed Project- specific fleet mix from the TIS to recalculate the Proposed Project’s operational emissions in CalEEMod or provide justification for using the CalEEMod default trip generation rate in the Final MND. Table 1: South Coast AQMD Staff’s Estimated Daily Truck Trips Based on Fleet Mix Source: South Coast AQMD staff. November 13, 2019. Notes: 1. The table was generated by South Coast AQMD staff based on the information from the Scheu Distribution Center MND, Appendix B Air Quality and GHG Analysis, and Appendix H Traffic Impact Study. 2. Daily Truck Trips were calculated by multiplying the Proposed Project’s 1,190 daily vehicle trips by the estimated percentages provided in Appendix H and the defaults provided in CalEEMod. Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Analysis 2. The Proposed Project includes operation of industrial/warehouse uses, which is expected to generate 254 daily truck trips (See Comment No. 1). However, upon review of the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Lead Agency did not perform a quantitative mobile source HRA analysis as substantial evidence to support a finding that the Proposed Project would not result in significant incremental increases in potential cancer risks to surrounding sensitive receptors (i.e., residential units within 56 feet)22. One of the basic purposes of CEQA is to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a)(1)). A mitigated negative declaration is appropriate when the Lead Agency finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment after incorporating mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 to 15075). Reasons to support this finding shall be documented as substantial evidence in the initial study. Without quantifying the Proposed Project’s long-term health risk impacts on nearby sensitive receptors during operation, the MND has not made that documentation. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency perform 19 254 truck trips = 1,190 daily vehicle trips x (8% light -duty trucks + 3.9% medium-duty trucks + 9.5% heavy-duty trucks). 20 MND. Appendix B: Air Quality and GHG Analysis. CalEEMod - Winter Run. PDF page 136. 21 119 truck trips = 1,190 daily vehicle trips x (2% light-duty trucks + 2% medium-duty trucks + 6% heavy-duty trucks). 22 Ibid. Air Quality. Page 46. Fleet Mix: Total Truck Trip Percentage1 Estimated Daily Truck Trips2 Proposed Project 21.4% 254 CalEEMod 10% 119 Difference in Estimated Daily Truck Trips: 135 054 053 Kirt Coury November 13, 2019 5 a mobile source HRA23 in the Final MND and compare the results to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk 24. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the use of equipment potentially generating air pollutants should also be included. Additional Recommended Mitigation Measures for Construction and Operational Air Quality Impacts 3. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. To further reduce the Proposed Project’s 99 lbs/day NOx emissions during construction, and to facilitate the achievement of goals and attainment timelines outlined in the 2016 AQMP, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following recommended mitigation measures for construction in the Final MND. Additionally, i n the event that, after revisions to the Air Quality Analysis based on Comment Nos. 1 and 2, the Lead Agency finds that the Proposed Project will result in significant adverse air quality impacts during operation that cannot be reduced to less than significant after the implementation of MM-AQ-1, additional feasible mitigation measures are required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070). South Coast AQMD staff has provided a list of recommended mitigation measures that are capable of reducing the Proposed Project’s operational emissions from mobile sources and area sources, and some of which are also capable of facilitating the achievements of goals and policies in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan. For more information on potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency, please visit South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook website25. Mitigation Measures for Construction Air Quality Impacts a) Require the use of off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 Final off‐road emissions standards for equipment rated at 50 horsepower or greater during construction of the Proposed Project. Such equipment will be outfitted with Best Availabl e Control Technology (BACT) devices including a CARB certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPFs). Level 3 DPFs are capable of achieving at least 85 percent reduction in particulate matter emissions26. A list of CARB verified DPFs are available on the CARB website27. To ensure that Tier 4 Final construction equipment or better would be used during the Proposed Project’s construction, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground disturbing and construction activities. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB or South Coast AQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Additionally, the Lead Agency should require periodic reporting and provision of written 23 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 24 South Coast AQMD has developed the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer ris k. When South Coast AQMD acts as the Lead Agency, South Coast AQMD staff conducts a HRA, compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to determine the level of significance for health risk impacts, and identifies mitigation meas ures if the risk is found to be significant. 25 South Coast AQMD. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 26 CARB. November 16-17, 2004. Diesel Off-Road Equipment Measure – Workshop. Page 17. Accessed at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/presentations/nov16-04_workshop.pdf. 27 Ibid. Page 18. 055 054 Kirt Coury November 13, 2019 6 construction documents by construction contractor(s) to ensure compliance and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. In the event that construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or Tier 3 emission standards, reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Proposed Project, and/or limiting construction phases occurring simultaneously. b)To further reduce the Proposed Project’s emissions during construction, especially from the 4,188 heavy-duty haul truck trips during the grading phase of construction, the Lead Agency should require the use of zero-emission (ZE) or near-zero emission (NZE) on-road haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emission standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). When requiring ZE or NZE on-road haul trucks, the Lead Agency should include analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient power and supportive infrastructure available for ZE/NZE trucks in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Sections of the Final MND, where appropriate. CARB also adopted the statewide Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent 28. Since the construction schedule of the Proposed Project extends beyond 2023 till 2027, 2010 model year trucks will be required for the Proposed Project and should become more widely available commercially. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency implement the Truck and Bus Regulation early and require, a t a minimum, that construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck operators commit to using 2010 model year or newer engines. Early implementation of the Truck and Bus Regulation at the Proposed Project will develop a construction management plan with a preference for construction contractor(s) who can supply 2010 model year trucks, help facilitate the transition to 2010 model year trucks in 2023, provide time and opportunities to resolve implementation challenges ahead of 2023, ease the costs and burden of regulatory compliance with the Truck and Bus Regulation, and yield emission reductions from fleets earlier than 2023. To monitor and ensure ZE, NZE, or 2010 model year trucks are used at the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should require that operators maintain records of all trucks associated with the Proposed Project’s construction and make these records available to the Lead Agency upon request. The records will serve as evidence to prove that each truck called to the Proposed Project during construction meets the minimum 2010 model year engine emission standards. Alternatively, the Lead Agency should require periodic reporting and provision of written records by contractors and conduct regular inspections of the records to the maximum extent feasible and practicable. 28 California Air Resources Board. December 20, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. 056 055 Kirt Coury November 13, 2019 7 c) Maintain equipment maintenance records for the construction portion of the Proposed Project. All construction equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their construction contractor(s) should be made available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction. d) Encourage construction contractors to apply for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds. The “SOON” program provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially-available low-emission heavy-duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. More information on this program can be found at South Coast AQMD’s website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/business-detail?title=off-road-diesel- engines. e) Restrict non-es sential diesel engine idle time to not more than five consecutive minutes or another time-frame as allowed by the California Code of Regulations, Title 13 section 2485 - CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. For any vehicle delivery that is expected to take longer than five minutes, each project applicant, project sponsor, or public agency will require the vehicle’s operator to shut off the engine. Notify the vendors of these idling requirements at the time that the purchase order is issued and again when vehicles enter the gates of the facility. To further ensure that drivers and operators understand the idling requirement, include the idling requirement in the training materials for drivers, operators, and vendors, post signs at the entry of the construction site and throughout the Proposed Project site stating that idling longer than five minutes is not permitted. Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts from Mobile Sources f) Require the use of zero emission (ZE) or near -zero emission (NZE) heavy-duty trucks during operation, such as trucks with natural gas engines that meet CARB’s adopted optional NOx emission standard of 0.02 grams per brake horsepower -hour (g/bhp-hr). At a minimum, require that operators of heavy-duty trucks visiting the Proposed Project during operation commit to using 2010 model year29 or newer and cleaner engines that meet CARB’s 2010 engine emission standards of 0.01 g/bhp-hr for particulate matter (PM) and the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emission standard of 0.20 g/bhp-hr for NOx emissions. Include analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient power available for ZE trucks and supportive infrastructures in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Sections of the Final MND, where appropriate. To monitor and ensure ZE, NZE, or 2010 model year trucks are used at the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should require that operators maintain records of all trucks associated with the Proposed Project’s operation and make these records available to the Lead Agency upon request. The records will serve as evidence t o prove that each truck called to the Proposed Project during operation meets the minimum 2010 model year engine emission standards. Alternatively, the Lead Agency should require periodic reporting and provision of written records by operators and conduct regular inspections of the records to the maximum extent feasible and practicable. 29 CARB adopted the statewide On-Road Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. More information on the CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulations is available here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. 057 056 Kirt Coury November 13, 2019 8 g) Create a buffer zone of at least 300 meters (roughly 1,000 feet), which can be office space, employee parking, greenbelt, etc. between the Proposed Project and sensitive receptors (e.g., residences), where feasible. h) Design the Proposed Project such that entrances and exits are such that trucks are not traversing past residences, and other sensitive receptors near the Proposed Project. i) Design the Proposed Project such that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the Proposed Project site to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility and ensure that truck traffic within the Proposed Project site is located away from the property line(s) closest to t he sensitive receptors (e.g., residences ), which are within 56 feet of the Proposed Project. j) Limit the daily number of truck trips allowed at the Proposed Project to the level that was analyzed in the Final MND (e.g., 254 daily truck trips). If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated during operation than what were analyzed in the adopted Final MND, the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the Proposed Project’s air quality and health risks impacts through a CEQA process prior to allowing higher truck activity levels (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). k) Require trucks to use the truck routes that are used to analyze the air quality and HRA impacts in the Final MND. l) Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not ent er residential areas that are adjacent to portions of the designated truck routes analyzed in the Final MND. m) Restrict overnight truck parking in residential areas. Establish parking within the Proposed Project where trucks can rest overnight. n) Establish area(s) within the Proposed Project site for repair needs and ensure that these designated areas are away from any sensitive land uses. o) To help facilitate the achievements of goals and policies defined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan, the Lead Agency should require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, or at a minimum, requir e the Proposed Project to be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for trucks to plug-in. Electrical hookups should be provided at the onsite truck stop for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. Electrical panels should be appropriately sized to allow for future expanded use. The Lead Agency should also include analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient power available for zero emission trucks and supportive infrastructures (e.g., EV char ging stations) in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Sections of the Final MND, where appropriate. Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts from Area Sources p) To help facilitate the achievements of goals and policies defined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan, the Lead Agency should maximize the use of solar energy including solar panels. Installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs a nd/or on the Proposed Project site to generate solar energy for the facility and/or EV charging stations. q) Require the use of electric landscaping equipment, such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers. 058 057 Kirt Coury November 13, 2019 9 r) Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. s) Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. t) Use light colored paving and roofing materials. u) Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. 059 058 November 12, 2019 Kirt Coury Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Kirt Coury: Thank you for providing California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff with the opportunity to comment on the SCHEU Distribution Center Project (Project) Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), State Clearinghouse No. 2019109040. The Project consists of the construction and operation of four industrial buildings totaling 240,710 square feet. Once in operation, the Project is projected to introduce an additional 1,191 total vehicle trips daily, including 936 daily passenger vehicle trips and 255 daily heavy-duty truck trips. The Project is located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), California, which is the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes. Freight facilities, such as warehouse and distribution facilities, can result in high daily volumes of heavy-duty diesel truck traffic and operation of on-site equipment (e.g., forklifts, yard tractors, etc.) that emit toxic diesel emissions, and contribute to regional air pollution and global climate change. CARB staff has reviewed the IS/MND and is concerned about the air pollution impacts that would result should the City approve the Project. I.The Project Would Increase Exposure to Air Pollution in Disadvantaged Communities The Project, if approved, will expose nearby disadvantaged communities to elevated air pollution. Residences are located north, northeast, and southwest of the Project with the closest residences located approximately 56 feet from the Project’s northeastern boundary. In addition to residences, six schools (Springs Charter School, Ontario Center School, Little Bears State Preschool, Rancho Cucamonga Middle School, Cucamonga Elementary School, and Mulberry Early Education Center), nine daycare centers (Lil Blessings Family Daycare, Little Promises Daycare, Kids Club, Jordan Family Daycare, Orell’s Daycare, Sweet Angels Family Daycare, Rancho Cucamonga KinderCare, Sunny Days, Inc. and Good Steward Daycare) and a senior center (Tender Hearts Senior Care) are located within two miles of the Project. The community is surrounded by existing toxic diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emission sources, which include existing warehouses and vehicular traffic along Interstate 10 (I-110) and EXHIBIT R 060 059 Kirt Coury November 12, 2019 Page 2 Interstate 15 (I-15). Due to the Project’s proximity to residences, schools, daycare centers, and senior centers already disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of air pollution, CARB staff is concerned with the potential cumulative health impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project. The State of California has placed additional emphasis on protecting local communities from the harmful effects of air pollution through the passage of Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) (Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017). AB 617 is a significant piece of air quality legislation that highlights the need for further emission reductions in communities with high exposure burdens, like those in which the Project is located. Diesel PM emissions generated during the construction and operation of the Project would negatively impact the community, which is already disproportionally impacted by air pollution from existing freight facilities and vehicular traffic along I-110 and I-15. Through its authority under Health and Safety Code section 39711, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is charged with the duty to identify disadvantaged communities. CalEPA bases its identification of these communities on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria (Health and Safety Code, section 39711, subsection (a)). In this capacity, CalEPA currently defines a disadvantaged community, from an environmental hazard and socioeconomic standpoint, as a community that scores within the top 25 percent of the census tracts, as analyzed by the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool Version 3.0 (CalEnviroScreen). CalEnviroScreen uses a screening methodology to help identify California communities currently disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. The census tract containing the Project is within the top 5 percent for Pollution Burden 1 and is therefore considered a disadvantaged community. Therefore, CARB staff urges the City to ensure that the Project does not adversely impact neighboring disadvantaged communities. II. The IS/MND Did Not Model Mobile Air Pollutant Emissions Using CARB’s 2017 Emission Factor Model (EMFAC2017) The Project’s air quality and health impacts were modeled using mobile emission factors obtained from CARB’s 2014 Emission Factors model (EMFAC2014). Project-related air pollutant emissions from mobile sources should be modeled using CARB’s latest EMFAC2017. One of the many updates made to EMFAC include an update to the model’s heavy-duty emission rates and idling emission factors, which results in higher particulate matter (PM) emissions as compared to EMFAC2014. Since EMFAC2017 generally shows higher PM emissions from trucks than EMFAC2014, the Project’s mobile source nitrogen oxides (NOx) and diesel PM emissions are likely underestimated. CARB staff urges the applicant and City to model and report the 1 Pollution Burden represents the potential exposures to pollutants and the adverse environmental conditions caused by pollution. 061 060 Kirt Coury November 12, 2019 Page 3 Project’s air pollution emissions from mobile sources using emission factors found CARBs latest EMFAC2017. III. The IS/MND Does Not Clearly Define the Final Use of the Project The air pollutant emissions reported in the IS/MND were estimated under the assumption that the proposed Project would not be used for cold storage. Since the Project description in the IS/MND did not explicitly state that the four industrial buildings proposed under the Project would not include cold storage space, there is a possibility that trucks and trailers visiting the Project site would be equipped with transport refrigeration units (TRU).2 TRUs on trucks and trailers can emit large quantities of diesel exhaust while operating within the Project site. Residences and other sensitive receptors (e.g., daycare facilities, senior care facilities, and schools) located near where these TRUs could be operating would be exposed to diesel exhaust emissions that would result in significant cancer risk. In this case, the IS/MND does not assess the air quality and health risk impacts from the Project adequately. CARB staff urges the applicant and City to revise the IS/MND to clearly define the Project’s description so the public can fully understand the potential environmental effects of the Project on their communities. If the Project will include cold storage space, the applicant and City should quantify all operational NOx, diesel PM emissions and health risks from TRUs, and disclose the results in a recirculated IS/MND. If the Project will not be used for cold storage, CARB staff urges the applicant and City to include in the IS/MND a Project design measure requiring contractual language in tenant lease agreements that prohibits tenants from operating TRUs within the Project site. Alternatively, the City can include a condition requiring a restrictive covenant over the parcel that prohibits the applicant's use of TRUs on the property unless the applicant seeks and receives an amendment to its conditional use permit allowing such use. If the City does allow TRUs within the Project site, CARB staff recommends the City require all loading/unloading docks and trailer spaces to be equipped with electrical hookups for trucks with TRUs and re-evaluate the Project’s health impacts in a recirculated HRA. IV. Heavy-Duty Truck Trip Inconsistencies The traffic impact analysis prepared for the Project (see Table 17-4 [Trip Generation Rates] and Table 17-5 [Trip Generation (Passenger Car Equivalents)] of the IS/MND) states that the Project would result in 1,191 average daily vehicle trips, of which 255 trips would consist of light, medium, and heavy-duty trucks. However, according to the Project's California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) outputs, referenced in Appendix B of the IS/MND, the Project fleet mix included 2.5 percent light-duty trucks, 1.7 percent medium-duty trucks, and 6.0 percent heavy-duty trucks. Based on these 2 TRUs are refrigeration systems powered by integral diesel engines that protect perishable goods during transport in an insulated truck and trailer vans, rail cars, and domestic shipping containers. 062 061 Kirt Coury November 12, 2019 Page 4 truck fleet mix estimates, the Project would result in approximately 121 average daily truck trips. Since the average daily truck trips reported in the Project's CalEEMod output are well below what is being reported in the Project's traffic impact analysis, CARB staff is concerned that the air pollutant emissions reported in the IS/MND are underestimated. CARB staff urges the applicant and City to remodel the Project’s mobile air pollutant emissions using the vehicle trips presented in Project’s traffic impact analysis. V. The IS/MND Does Not Account for Air Pollutant Emissions Emitted by On-site Forklifts The air quality section of the IS/MND does not reflect the operational air pollutant emissions found in Appendix B of the IS/MND. According to the Project’s CalEEMod output files, the Project would result in 39 pounds per day (ppd) of NOx, 13 ppd of particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) and 4 ppd particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) during the operation of on-site forklifts. However, Table 3-5 (Regional Operational Emissions) of the IS/MND does not report these air pollutant emissions; but rather, only reports the air pollutant emissions from mobile, energy, and area sources generated by CalEEMod. According to the IS/MND, the Project is anticipated to result in ten forklifts operating within the proposed industrial buildings. CARB staff urges the applicant and City to account for all Project-related air pollutant emission sources when evaluating the Project’s impact on air quality and public health. VI. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Potential Health Risk Impacts The applicant and City did not prepare a HRA for the Project; but rather, the IS/MND concluded that the Project’s cancer risk impacts would result in a less than significant impact due to the Project’s low rate of heavy-duty truck trips. According to the air quality section of the IS/MND, the Project would result in approximately 35 heavy-duty truck trips per day, which directly conflicts with the traffic volumes and splits presented in the transportation section. As previously discussed under Item IV above, the Project’s traffic impact analysis anticipates the proposed industrial buildings would result in approximately 255 heavy-duty truck trips, which is well above the 35 heavy-duty truck trip estimate used in the air quality section to rationalize the applicant’s and City’s decision to not prepare a HRA for the Project. Since the Project is located near residences already disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of air pollution, CARB staff strongly urges the applicant and City to prepare a HRA for the Project. The HRA prepared in support of the Project should be based on the latest Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance (2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of 063 062 Kirt Coury November 12, 2019 Page 5 Health Risk Assessments),3 and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook.4 VII. Conclusion Lead agencies may only adopt mitigated negative declarations if the “initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment” (14 CCR section 15070(b)(2)). Based on the comments provided above, CARB staff is concerned that the City’s current IS/MND does not meet this threshold. As it stands, the IS/MND does not meet the bare legal minimum of serving as an adequate informational document relative to informing decision makers and the public that there is no substantial evidence5 in the record that the Project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment (see Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 520). Based on the items discussed above, CARB staff believes that there would be substantial evidence in the record to find that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment if the air quality and health impact analysis. In this event, the applicant and City would be required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project under the “fair argument” standard (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83).6 CARB staff recommends that the City remodel the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts, and recirculate the IS/MND for public review. Should the updated and recirculated IS/MND find, after adequately addressing informational deficiencies noted in this letter, that there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, the applicant and City must prepare and circulate a draft EIR for public review, as required under CEQA. In addition to the concerns listed above, CARB staff encourages the applicant and City to implement the measures listed in Attachment A of this comment letter in order to 3 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015. Accessed at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/201 Sguidancemanual.pdf 4 SCAQMD's 1993 Handbook can be found at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook 5 “Substantial evidence” is defined, in part, as “enough relevant information and reasonable information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” 6 The adequacy of an IS/MND is judicially reviewed under the “fair argument” standard should a party challenge the lead agencies CEQA determination. Under this standard, a negative declaration is invalid if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1399.) This is the case “even though [the lead agency] may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.” (CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 CCR section 15064(f)(1).) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) places the burden of environmental investigation on the public agency rather than on the public. If a lead agency does not fully evaluate a project’s environmental consequences, it cannot support a decision to adopt a negative declaration by asserting that the record contains no substantial evidence of a significant adverse environmental impact. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) If a lead agency does not study a potential environmental impact, a reviewing court may find the existence of a fair argument of a significant impact based on limited facts in the record that might otherwise not be sufficient to support a fair argument of a significant impact. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) 064 063 Kirt Coury November 12, 2019 Page 6 reduce the Project’s construction and operational air pollution emissions. CARB staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND for the Project and can provide assistance on zero-emission technologies and emission reduction strategies, as needed. If you have questions, please contact Stanley Armstrong, Air Pollution Specialist, at (916) 440-8242 or via email at stanley.armstrong@arb.ca.gov. Sincerely, Richard Boyd, Chief Risk Reduction Branch Transportation and Toxics Division Attachment cc: See next page. 065 064 Kirt Coury November 12, 2019 Page 7 cc: State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 Morgan Capilla NEPA Reviewer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Division, Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 Carlo De La Cruz Sierra Club 714 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90015 Lijin Sun Program Supervisor - CEQA South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California 91765 Andrea Vidaurre Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice P.O. Box 33124 Riverside, California 92519 Stanley Armstrong Air Pollution Specialist Exposure Reduction Section Transportation and Toxics Division 066 065 067 066 Attachment - 1 ATTACHMENT A Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff recommends developers and government planners use all existing and emerging zero to near-zero emission technologies during project construction and operation to minimize public exposure to air pollution. Below are some measures, currently recommend by CARB staff, specific to warehouse and distribution center projects. These recommendations are subject to change as new zero-emission technologies become available. Recommended Construction Measures 1. Ensure the cleanest possible construction practices and equipment are used. This includes eliminating the idling of diesel-powered equipment and providing the necessary infrastructure (e.g., electrical hookups) to support zero and near-zero equipment and tools. 2. Implement, and plan accordingly for, the necessary infrastructure to support the zero and near-zero emission technology vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site. Necessary infrastructure may include the physical (e.g., needed footprint), energy, and fueling infrastructure for construction equipment, on-site vehicles and equipment, and medium-heavy and heavy-heavy duty trucks. 3. In construction contracts, include language that requires all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction to be equipped with Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment in which Tier 4 engines are not available. In place of Tier 4 engines, off-road equipment can incorporate retrofits such that emission reductions achieved equal or exceed that of a Tier 4 engine. 4. In construction contracts, include language that requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction be battery powered. 5. In construction contracts, include language that requires all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site, during the grading and building construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet CARB’s lowest optional low-NOx standard starting in the year 2022.1 1 In 2013, CARB adopted optional low-NOx emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines. CARB staff encourages engine manufacturers to introduce new technologies to reduce NOx emissions below the current mandatory on-road heavy-duty diesel engine emission standards for model years 2010 and later. CARB’s optional low-NOx emission standard is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/optionnox/optionnox.htm. 068 067 Attachment - 2 6. In construction contracts, include language that requires all construction equipment and fleets to be in compliance with all current air quality regulations. CARB staff is available to assist in implementing this recommendation. Recommended Operation Measures 1. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires tenants to use the cleanest technologies available, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site. 2. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires all loading/unloading docks and trailer spaces be equipped with electrical hookups for trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) or auxiliary power units. This requirement will substantially decrease the amount of time that a TRU powered by a fossil-fueled internal combustion engine can operate at the project site. Use of zero-emission all-electric plug-in TRUs, hydrogen fuel cell transport refrigeration and cryogenic transport refrigeration are encouraged and can also be included lease agreements.2 3. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires all TRUs entering the project site be plug-in capable. 4. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans. 5. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements requiring all TRUs, trucks, and cars entering the Project site be zero-emission. 6. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires all service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) used within the project site to be zero-emission. This equipment is widely available. 7. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be model year 2014 or later today, expedite a transition to zero-emission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission beginning in 2030. 2. CARB’s Technology Assessment for Transport Refrigerators provides information on the current and projected development of TRUs, including current and anticipated costs. The assessment is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/techreport/tru_07292015.pdf. 069 068 Attachment - 3 8. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires the tenant be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on-road trucks including CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation,3 Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP),4 and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.5 9. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements restricting trucks and support equipment from idling longer than five minutes while on site. 10. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that limits on-site TRU diesel engine runtime to no longer than 15 minutes. If no cold storage operations are planned, include contractual language and permit conditions that prohibit cold storage operations unless a health risk assessment is conducted and the health impacts fully mitigated. 11. Include rooftop solar panels for each proposed warehouse to the extent feasible, with a capacity that matches the maximum allowed for distributed solar connections to the grid. 3. In December 2008, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty tractors that pull 53-foot or longer box-type trailers. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53-foot or longer box-type trailers, including both dry-van and refrigerated-van trailers, and owners of the heavy-duty tractors that pull them on California highways. CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/hdghg.htm. 4. The PSIP program requires that diesel and bus fleet owners conduct annual smoke opacity inspections of their vehicles and repair those with excessive smoke emissions to ensure compliance. CARB’s PSIP program is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/hdvip/hdvip.htm. 5. The regulation requires newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. 070 069 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER, INITIAL STUDY, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment Letter No. 1 Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) (10-23-19) EXHIBIT S 071 070 072 071 073 072 Responses to Letter No. 1 1a These are introductory statements and project description information that do not require a response. 1b This comment entirely or partially consists of the expression of an opinion not supported by factual evidence or legal argument. No further discussion is required by CEQA. 1c Comment noted. Notice of any and all actions or hearings related to the Project will be provided via U.S. Mail to Lozeau Drury LLP, as requested. No further response is required. 1d Comment noted. Project-related notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held will be provided via U.S. Mail to Lozeau Drury LLP, as requested. No further response is required. 1e Comment noted – list of persons to whom Project-related notices will be addressed to. No further response is required. 1f The last paragraph is a closing statement that does not require a response. 074 073 Comment Letter No. 2 California Air Resources Board (CARB) (11-12-19) 075 074 076 075 077 076 078 077 079 078 080 079 081 080 082 081 083 082 084 083 Responses to Letter No. 2 2a These are introductory statements and a reiteration of the Project Description that do not require a response. 2b These are informational statements that do not require a response. 2c The Applicant acknowledges CARB’s concern for the exposure of sensitive receptors located in disadvantaged communities surrounding the Project site to substantial pollution concentrations, and also acknowledges that a quantified diesel health risk assessment has not been performed for this Project. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s General Plan Land Use designation, Zoning classification, and Zoning Code requirements for industrial uses and the Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-23-2019 (AQ/GHG Analysis) has been approved by the City’s peer review consultant. Additionally, the following standard rules and conditions shall apply. While these will be applicable to the Project, they are not Project specific mitigation measures: • All future development and redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with the recommendations set forth in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, prepared by California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board (April 2005), for siting new sensitive land uses. • All future development and redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 212, Standards for Approving Permits, related to permitting projects based on the anticipated output of air contaminants and proximity to sensitive receptors. • All future development and redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1402, Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, related to reducing the health risk associated with toxic air contaminants. 2d See Response 2.c, above. 2e See Response 2.c, above. 2f The AQ/GHG Analysis utilizes the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2016.3.2) which is recognized by the California Air Resources board and which incorporates Emission Factors Model EMFAC2014. Furthermore, the EPA has stated in their Official Release of EMFAC2017 Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model for Use in the State of California, August 15, 2019 letter that a grace period for using EMFAC2017 in regional emissions analyses begins on August 15, 2019 and ends on August 16, 2021. 2g The Project will not include cold storage and is not expected to generate trucks equipped with transport refrigeration units (TRUs). Therefore, it is not included in the language of the Project Description. 085 084 2h See Response 2.g, above. 2i The mobile emissions analysis in the AQ/GHG Analysis has been updated to include the same vehicle mix that was used in the Traffic Impact Study (Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 11-21-2019). The changes are reflected in Tables 14, 24, 25, and 27, and Appendices A and B of the AQ/GHG Analysis (11-21-19). There has been no significant change to the findings of the analysis as a result of the updated vehicle mix and all previously identified General Plan EIR mitigation measures, Project specific mitigation, standard rules and conditions, and project design features are still applicable. (The updated AQ/GHG Analysis (11-21-19) is provided as Appendix A to this Response Letter.) 2j Table 24 and Table 25 of the AQ/GHG Analysis (11-21-19), have been updated to show the on-site emissions from the operation of forklifts. There has been no significant change to the findings of the analysis as a result of the updated information. 2k The Applicant acknowledges that a diesel health risk assessment has not been performed for this Project, and therefore, the risk from exposure to toxic air contaminants has not been quantified. As described in Section 6.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis, the following emissions reductions strategies for on-site Project operations shall be implemented: • Limit engine idling time to 5 minutes or less. • Encourage trucks accessing the site to be equipped with the latest cleaner- burning diesel fuel technology. • Encourage trucks that visit the site to be retrofit engines with particle- trapping filters. • Encourage the use of alternative fuels, such as natural gas, propane and electricity instead of diesel whenever possible. 2l See Response 2.k, above. 2m Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, and the responses contained herein, the Project will not have a significant impact upon the environment with the inclusion of design features, standard condition and implementation of mitigation measures. The IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA document for this Project. 2n See Response 2.m, above. 2o The Applicant has addressed the comment provided by CARB and has demonstrated that there is no new information provided that would demonstrate that the conclusions contained in the Initial Study would require re-circulation pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2p Comment noted; Attachment A will be reviewed. 2q These are closing statements that do not require a response. 086 085 2r This is a list of persons copied on the comment letter that does not require a response. 2s The Applicant acknowledges CARB’s Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers. No additional mitigation measures beyond those as shown in the Initial Study will be implemented. No changes shall be made. 087 086 Comment Letter No. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (11-13-19) 088 087 089 088 090 089 091 090 092 091 093 092 094 093 095 094 096 095 Responses to Letter No. 3 3a These are introductory statements that do not require a response. 3b This is a reiteration of the Project Description that does not require a response. 3c This is a reiteration of information contained in the Air Quality Section of the Initial Study that does not require a response. 3d This is a reiteration of information contained in the Air Quality Section of the Initial Study that does not require a response. 3e This information about the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality management Plan that does not require a response. 3f The mobile emissions analysis in the AQ/GHG Analysis has been updated to include the same vehicle mix that was used in the Traffic Impact Study (Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 11-21-2019). The changes are reflected in Tables 14, 24, 25, and 27, and Appendices A and B of the AQ/GHG Analysis (11-21-19). There has been no significant change to the findings of the analysis as a result of the updated vehicle mix and all previously identified General Plan EIR mitigation measures, Project specific mitigation, standard rules and conditions, and project design features are still applicable. (The updated AQ/GHG Analysis (11-21-19) is provided as Appendix A to this Response Letter.) The Applicant acknowledges that a diesel health risk assessment has not been performed for this Project, and therefore, the risk from exposure to toxic air contaminants has not been quantified. As described in Section 6.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis, the following emissions reductions strategies for on-site Project operations shall be implemented: • Limit engine idling time to 5 minutes or less. • Encourage trucks accessing the site to be equipped with the latest cleaner- burning diesel fuel technology. • Encourage trucks that visit the site to be retrofit engines with particle- trapping filters. • Encourage the use of alternative fuels, such as natural gas, propane and electricity instead of diesel whenever possible. 3g The Applicant has reviewed the comments provided by the SCAQMD and will ensure that SCAQMD will be able to review these responses to comments, which have been supported by factual information. 3h This paragraph is a closing statement that does not require a response. 3i The mobile emissions analysis in the AQ/GHG Analysis has been updated to include the same vehicle mix that was used in the Traffic Impact Study (Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 11-21-2019). The changes are reflected in Tables 14, 24, 097 096 25, and 27, and Appendices A and B of the AQ/GHG Analysis (11-21-19). There has been no significant change to the findings of the analysis as a result of the updated vehicle mix and all previously identified General Plan EIR mitigation measures, Project specific mitigation, standard rules and conditions, and project design features are still applicable. (The updated AQ/GHG Analysis (11-21-19) is provided as Appendix A to this Response Letter.) 3j The Applicant acknowledges that a diesel health risk assessment has not been performed for this Project, and therefore, the risk from exposure to toxic air contaminants has not been quantified. As described in Section 6.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis, the following emissions reductions strategies for on-site Project operations shall be implemented: • Limit engine idling time to 5 minutes or less • Encourage trucks accessing the site to be equipped with the latest cleaner- burning diesel fuel technology. • Encourage trucks that visit the site to be retrofit engines with particle- trapping filters • Encourage the use of alternative fuels, such as natural gas, propane and electricity instead of diesel whenever possible. 3k The Applicant acknowledges the Additional Recommended Mitigation Measures for Construction and Operational Air Quality Impacts made by SCAQMD. It should be noted that the Project’s construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions are shown to be below the established thresholds of significance with the recommended mitigation measures and Project design features described in the AQ/GHG Analysis. No additional mitigation measures beyond those as shown in the Initial Study will be implemented. No changes shall be made. 3l See Response 3.k, above. 3m See Response 3.k, above. 3n See Response 3.k, above. 3o See Response 3.k, above. 3p See Response 3.k, above. 3q See Response 3.k, above. 3r See Response 3.k, above. 3s See Response 3.k, above. 3t See Response 3.k, above. 3u See Response 3.k, above. 3v See Response 3.k, above. 098 097 3w See Response 3.k, above. 3x See Response 3.k, above. 3y See Response 3.k, above. 3z See Response 3.k, above. 3aa See Response 3.k, above. 3bb See Response 3.k, above. 3cc See Response 3.k, above. 3dd See Response 3.k, above. 3ee See Response 3.k, above. 3ff See Response 3.k, above. 099 098 APPENDIX A UPDATED AQ/GHG ANALYSIS (11-21-19) 100 099 INITIAL STUDY FOR THE SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Prepared for: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Kirt Coury, Associate Planner 909.477.2750 kirt.coury@cityofrc.us Prepared by: Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 Matthew Fagan, Owner 951.265.5428 matthewfagan@roadrunner.com October 2019 Exhibit T 101 100 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 II. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................. 20 III. Determination .............................................................................................................. 21 IV. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................... 22 V. Environmental Checklist Form ..................................................................................... 24 1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 24 2. Agriculture & Forestry Resources ........................................................................... 30 3. Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 33 4. Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 48 5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 58 6. Energy .................................................................................................................... 60 7. Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 68 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 81 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................... 87 10. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................ 98 11. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................ 112 12. Mineral Resources................................................................................................ 115 13. Noise .................................................................................................................... 116 14. Population and Housing ....................................................................................... 147 15. Public Services ..................................................................................................... 148 16. Recreation ............................................................................................................ 153 17. Transportation ...................................................................................................... 154 18. Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 185 19. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 194 20. Wildfire ................................................................................................................. 202 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 206 VI. Sources ....................................................................................................................... 208 Figures Figure 1 Regional Location Map ....................................................................................... 11 Figure 2 Vicinity Map......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 Tentative Parcel Map .......................................................................................... 13 Figure 4 Site Plan - DRC 2018-00529 ............................................................................... 14 Figure 5 Elevations ........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 TTM 37439 Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................................. 17 Figure 7 Site Drainage Plan .............................................................................................. 18 Figure 8 Cross-Sections .................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7-1 Regional Geologic Map .................................................................................... 79 Figure 7-2 Borehole Location Aerial Photograph ............................................................... 80 102 101 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page ii Figure 9-1 GEOTRACKER ................................................................................................ 96 Figure 9-2 ENVIROSTOR ................................................................................................. 97 Figure 10-1 Hydrology Map ............................................................................................... 110 Figure 10-2 Site and Drainage Plan .................................................................................. 111 Figure 13-1 Noise Measurement Locations ....................................................................... 145 Figure 13-2 Mitigation and Design Feature Locations ....................................................... 146 Figure 17-1 Location Map ................................................................................................. 180 Figure 17-2 OmniTrans Routes ......................................................................................... 181 Figure 17-3 Bicycle Plan ................................................................................................... 182 Figure 17-4 Trip Distribution .............................................................................................. 183 Figure 17-5 Cumulative Projects Location Map ................................................................. 184 Tables Table 1 Construction Equipment Assumptions Phase ....................................................... 3 Table 1-1 Adjacent Properties and Uses ........................................................................... 27 Table 3-1 Construction Equipment Assumptions Phase .................................................... 36 Table 3-2 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ..................................................... 37 Table 3-3 Regional Construction Emissions - Unmitigated ................................................ 38 Table 3-4 Regional Construction Emissions - Mitigated .................................................... 39 Table 3-5 Regional Operational Emissions ....................................................................... 41 Table 3-6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) .......................................... 43 Table 3-7 Localized Construction Emissions ..................................................................... 43 Table 3-8 Localized Operational Emissions ...................................................................... 45 Table 6-1 Project Electricity Consumption ......................................................................... 61 Table 6-2 Project Natural Gas Consumption ..................................................................... 62 Table 6-3 Construction Off-Road Equipment Energy Consumption ................................... 63 Table 6-4 Construction On-Road Trips Energy Consumption ............................................ 64 Table 6-5 Operational Trips Energy Consumption ............................................................. 65 Table 6-6 Total Project Energy Consumption .................................................................... 66 Table 7-1 Closest Known Active Faults ............................................................................. 69 Table 8-1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................... 82 Table 8-2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................... 83 Table 8-3 Project Compliance with Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 84 Table 11-1 General Industrial Zone Development Standards ............................................. 114 Table 11-2 General Industrial Zone Streetscape Setback Requirements ........................... 114 Table 13-1 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ........................................................ 120 Table 13-2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Residential Noise Limits ...................................... 121 103 102 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page iii Table 13-3 City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Performance Standards ....................... 121 Table 13-4 Roadway Parameters ...................................................................................... 124 Table 13-5 Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix) ....................................................................... 124 Table 13-6 Reference Stationary Noise Level Measurements ........................................... 125 Table 13-7 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results......................................................... 126 Table 13-8 Existing Roadway Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) .................................................. 127 Table 13-9 Typical Construction Noise Levels................................................................... 128 Table 13-10 Construction Noise Impact Analysis .............................................................. 130 Table 13-11 Roadway Noise Impact Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions .............. 132 Table 13-12 Roadway Noise Impact Analysis – Project Opening Year Conditions ............ 132 Table 13-13 Stationary Noise Impact Analysis – Daytime Residential ............................... 134 Table 13-14 Stationary Noise Impact Analysis - Nighttime Residential .............................. 135 Table 13-15 Stationary Noise Impact Analysis - Industrial ................................................. 136 Table 13-16 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria .......................................................... 139 Table 13-17 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria .............................................. 139 Table 13-18 Suggested “n” Values Based on Soil Classes ............................................... 140 Table 13-19 Typical Construction Vibration Levels ............................................................ 141 Table 13-20 Construction Vibration Impact Analysis ......................................................... 142 Table 17-1 Study Area Intersections ................................................................................. 155 Table 17-2 LOS ................................................................................................................. 156 Table 17-3 Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions ................................................... 158 Table 17-4 Trip Generation Rates ..................................................................................... 160 Table 17-5 Trip Generation (Passenger Car Equivalents) ................................................. 161 Table 17-6 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation ............................................................... 163 Table 17-7 Intersection Analysis for Opening Year 2019 Without Project Conditions ........ 165 Table 17-8 Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2019) With Project ............................ 167 Table 17-9 Intersection Analysis for Mitigated Opening Year With Project Conditions ....... 171 Table 17-10 Intersection Analysis for Long Range Year (2040) Without Project Conditions ..................................................................................................... 173 Table 17-11 Intersection Analysis for Long Range Year (2040) With Project Conditions ... 175 Table 17-12 Project Fair-Share Intersection Contribution (Long Range Year 2040) .......... 177 Table 19-1 Normal Year Supply (AFY) ......................................................................................198 Table 19-2 Single Dry Year Supply (AFY) ......................................................................... 198 Table 19-3 Multiple Dry Year Supply (AFY) ....................................................................... 199 104 103 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page iv APPENDICES See Enclosed CD Appendix A Rancho Cucamonga Property Information Report, City GIS Appendix B Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-23-2019 Appendix C Habitat Assessment for the Approximately 13-Acre Greenfield Property, prepared by ELMT Consulting, 4-17-2019 Appendix D1 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the 13.23 Scheu Business Center Project Site (APN 209-211-024), prepared by Archaeological Associates, 12-2019 Appendix D2 Pre-Construction Paleontological Assessment of the 13.23 Scheu Business Center Project Site (APN 209-211-024) Located Immediately Northeast of the Intersection of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, prepared by Archaeological Associates, 5-1-2019 Appendix D3 Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) Formal Notification, prepared by City of Rancho Cucamonga, 6-11-2019 Appendix E1 Geotechnical Investigation Industrial/Warehouse Building, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 4-30-2013 Appendix E2 Industrial/Warehouse Building Geotechnical Update, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 9-10-2018 Appendix F Scheu Industrial Park Preliminary Drainage Report, prepared by Encompass Associates, Inc., 3-22-2018 Appendix G Scheu Business Center Acoustic Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-23-2019 Appendix H Scheu Business Center Update Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 9-18-2019 Appendix I Scheu Distribution Center Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc., 10-18-2018 Appendix J Project Plans, 12-2018 Appendix K Public Records published by Realist, 1-2019 Appendix L Scheu Business Center Energy Conservation Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-25-2019 105 104 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page v LIST OF COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB Assembly Bill AC Acre ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act ADT Average Daily Traffic af Acre-Feet Afu Undocumented Artificial Fill AG Agriculture AMSL Above Mean Sea Level APN Assessor’s Parcel Number AQ/GHG Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas AQMP Air Quality Management Plans ARB Air Resources Board Basin South Coast Air Basin BGS Below Ground Surface BMPs Best Management Practices BUOW Burrowing Owl CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEEMod™ California Emissions Estimator Model™ Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CAP Climate Action Plan CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDC California Department of Conservation CDF California Department of Forestry CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CETAP Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Program CH4 Methane CMP Congestion Management Program CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society’s CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CRA Cultural Resources Assessment CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan CSD Cucamonga School District CUP Conditional Use Permit CVWD Cucamonga Valley Water District CY Cubic Yards CZ Change of Zone 106 105 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page vi dB Decibel dBA A-Weighted Decibel dBA CNEL A-weighted decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA Leq A-weighted decibel equivalent noise level DG Decomposed Granite DIF Development Impact Fee DMA Drainage Management Area DPM diesel particulate matter Dt Domino Fine Sandy Loam, Saline-Alkali DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control Dv Domino Silt Loam, Saline-Alkali EAP Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project EAPC Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative EnA Exeter Sandy Loam, 0 To 2 Percent Slopes EO Executive Order EoB Exeter Sandy Loam, Slightly Saline-Alkali, 0 To 5 Percent Slopes EPA Environmental Protection Agency EpA Exeter Sandy Loam, Deep, 0 To 2 Percent Slopes EwB Exeter Very Fine Sandy Loam, 0 To 5 Percent Slopes EyB Exeter Very Fine Sandy Loam, Deep, 0 To 5 Percent Slopes °F Fahrenheit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIA Fiscal Impact Analysis FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG Greenhouse Gas GI General Industrial GP General Plan GPA General Plan Amendment (GBMI-KN) Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation GPEIR General Plan Environmental Impact Report HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFCs Hydroflourocarbons HRA Health Risk Assessment Hz Hertz I-P Industrial Park IS Initial Study IS/EA Initial Study/Environmental Assessment ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers kW Kilowatt KWh Kilowatt Hours LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County LBP Lead Based Paint LESA Land Evaluation & Site Assessment Leq Equivalent Energy Level LI Light Industrial LID Low Impact Development LOS Level of Service LST Localized Significance Thresholds MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 107 106 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page vii MFCS Matthew Fagan Consulting Services MGD Million Gallons Per Day MLD Most Likely Descendent MM Mitigation Measure MMT Million Metric Tons MRZ Mineral Resources Zones M-SC Manufacturing-Service Commercial MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWh Megawatt-Hour N2O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOX Oxides of Nitrogen NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NR Noise Reduction NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service O3 Ozone OHP Office of Historic Preservation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb Lead pc/mi/ln Passenger Cars Per Mile Per Lane PFCs Perfluorocabons PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter Ppb Parts Per Billion Ppm Parts Per Million PPV Peak Particle Velocity PRC Public Resources Code PVC Polyvinyl Chloride PV Photovoltaic Qoal Older Alluvium RCFPD Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model RMS Root Mean Squared ROG Reactive Organic Gases ROW Right-of-Way RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board RWRF Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SCG Southern California Gas Company SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SOI Sphere of Influence 108 107 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page viii SOX Oxides of Sulfur SMARA The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMBMI) San Manuel Band of Mission Indians SMGB State Mining and Geology Board SO2 Sulphur Dioxide SOx Sulphur Oxides SoCAB South Coast Air Basin Sq. Ft. Square Feet SRA Source Receptor Area s/v Seconds Per Vehicle SWP State Water Project SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminant TCP Traffic Control Plan TCR Tribal Cultural Resource TDS Total Dissolved Solids TIS Traffic Impact Study Tpd Tons per day UBC Uniform Building Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound Wd Waukena Loam, Saline-Alkali WDR Waste Discharge Requirement WQMP Water Quality Management Plan 109 108 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. INTRODUCTION 1. Project Title: Scheu Distribution Center, Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20006) and Design Review (DRC2018-00529) 2. Lead Agency Name: City of Rancho Cucamonga Address: 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 3. Contact Person: Kirt Coury, Associate Planner Phone Number: 909-477-2750 4. Project Location: 9668 7th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Reference Figure 1, Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Scheu Management Corporation - 177 D Street, Upland, CA 91786 6. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 7. Zoning: General Industrial (GI) 8. Project Description: A proposal to subdivide one (1) parcel of 13.23 acres into four (4) parcels in conjunction with a proposal to develop the site with four (4) new industrial buildings on property located within the General Industrial (GI) District at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street – Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0209-211-24. A. Overview The Project includes the following applications: Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20006) and Design Review (DRC 2018-00529). These applications will collectively comprise the “Project.” B. Tentative Parcel Map - (SUBTPM20006) SUBTPM20006 proposes to subdivide one (1) parcel of 13.23 acres into four (4) parcels in conjunction with a proposal to develop the site with four (4) new industrial buildings. Reference Figure 3, Tentative Parcel Map. 110 109 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 2 C. Design Review - DRC 2018-00529 DRC 2018-00529 proposes four (4) new industrial buildings totaling 240,710 square feet (sq. ft.) on approximately 13.23 acres and will be comprised of general industrial uses. All four buildings will provide offices and warehouse space. The square footage for each building is as follows: • Building 1 – 17,300 square feet (sq. ft.) • Building 2 – 24,750 sq. ft. • Building 3 – 74,660 sq. ft. • Building 4 - 124,000 sq. ft. Required/provided parking is 237 stalls. Required landscaping is 55,947 sq. ft. (10%) and provided landscaping is 66,373 sq. ft. (11.9%). Reference Figure 4, Site Plan - DRC 2018- 00529. The buildings are modern in design with many windows, metal and aluminum accents, and grey tones for paint/materials. Reference Figure 5, Elevations. Project Grading Rough grading of the Project site will consist of approximately 2,800 cubic yards net cut and 36,300 cubic yards net fill, resulting in approximately 33,500 cubic yards of import (excluding subexcavation quantities). The imported fill material will be coming from within a 5-mile radius of the Project site. For air emissions modeling purposes a haul distance of 20 miles is assumed. Dirt is assumed to be hauled in heavy-heavy duty trucks (GWR>26,000lbs) and the total number of trips required for import would be 4,188 trips. The fill material will be clean (not containing contaminated soil), and the export site will have all the requisite environmental clearances. Reference Figure 6, TTM 37439 Conceptual Grading Plan. General Construction Assumptions According to the Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering, Inc., 4-23-2019 (Appendix B), general construction assumptions, as well as the number and types of construction equipment needed, have been assumed for the Project. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis assumed that Construction of the project would begin in the year 2018 and last approximately 14 months. The Project’s construction schedule has been adjusted/expedited to meet the 2019 opening year timeline requested by the applicant. Construction activity will consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction phases are not expected to overlap. Construction equipment assumptions are contained in Table 1, Construction Equipment Assumptions Phase. 111 110 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 3 Table 1 Construction Equipment Assumptions Phase1 Phase1 Phase Duration (Days)1 Equipment1 Amount1 Hours Per Day1 Soil Disturbance Rate (Acres) 8hr-Day)2 Equipment Daily Disturbance Footprint (Acres) Total Phase Daily Disturbance Footprint (Acres) Site Preparation 10 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 1.0 3.0 5.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 0.5 2.0 Grading 30 Excavators 2 8 0.0 1.0 3.375 Graders 1 8 0.5 0.375 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 0.5 0.375 Scrapers 2 8 0.5 0.750 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 0.5 0.875 Building Construction 240 Cranes 1 7 0.0 0.0 1.5 Forklifts 3 8 0.0 0.0 Generator Sets 1 8 0.0 0.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 0.5 1.5 Welders 1 8 0.0 0.0 Paving 20 Pavers 2 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paving Equipment 2 8 0.0 0.0 Rollers 2 8 0.0 0.0 Architectural Coating 20 Air Compressors 1 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Energy Analysis (Appendix L) 1 Source: Scheu Business Center Air Quality and GHG Impact Study. (CalEEMod v.2016.3.2) 2 HP-hrs = Horsepower Hours. 3 Source: Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. 2017 Revisions. Table D-21. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/current.htm 4 Mbtu = Millions of Btu; assuming 1 gallon of diesel fuel = 137,381 Btu. 112 111 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 4 Drainage / Hydrology / Water Quality The Project site is currently vacant with seasonal vegetation, and is tributary to the Archibald Avenue Storm Drain, Cucamonga Creek Channel (Primary Hydrologic Basin No. 801.21) with the downstream waters being Mill Creek/Prado Area (Primary Hydrologic Basin No. 801.21) and Santa Ana River Reach 3. Cucamonga Creek Channel is listed for pathogens, bacteria, nutrients and suspended solids and Santa Ana River Reach 3 is listed for pathogens and bacteria. Elevation on the project site range from approximately 1096 at the northeast corner to approximately to approximately 1083 at the southwest corners. A public storm drain system will be installed in Seventh Street contiguous to the Project site connecting to the Archibald Storm Drain and will provide catch basin filters and perforated sub surface storm drain chambers to address water quality issues from the development. The public storm drain will be installed by the Developer. Reference Figure 7, Site and Drainage Plan. Circulation The following are descriptions of the roadways adjacent to the Project site. Access will be taken from Acacia Street and 7th Street. The Project includes widening 7th Street along the Project site’s frontage and construction of half-width street improvements to include asphalt paving, concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. The Project site has limited frontage along its northern boundary with Acacia Street; Acacia Street will be widened modestly to accommodate a knuckle design corner transition to Cottage Avenue. The Project does not include any new street lighting along Acacia Street. Additional details are contained below. Archibald Avenue According to Figure 8, Cross-Sections, Archibald Avenue has a 51’ wide half-width right-of- way (ROW). Within this half-width ROW will be 36’ of pavement and a 15’ wide parkway, which includes a 4’ wide meandering sidewalk. The Project will install 16’ of pavement, curb, gutter, as well as the 15’ wide parkway. Acacia Street According to Figure 8, Cross-Sections, Acacia Street has a 33’ wide half-width ROW. Within this half-width ROW will be 15’ of pavement and a 16’ wide parkway, which includes a 4’ wide curb separated sidewalk. The Project will install 15’ of pavement, curb, gutter, as well as the 16’ wide parkway. 7th Street According to Figure 8, Cross-Sections, 7th Street has a 33’ wide half-width right-of-way ROW. Within this half-width ROW will be 22’ of pavement and an 11’ wide parkway, which includes a 6’ wide curb separated sidewalk. The Project will install 22’ of pavement, curb, gutter, as well as the 11’ wide parkway. 113 112 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 5 Project Design Features/General Plan Mitigation Measures/Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan Compliance The following Project Design features are incorporated into the Project for air quality emissions: The following Project design features for construction and operations (standard requirements by SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 require implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site): • All active construction areas shall be watered two (2) times daily. • All haul trucks shall be covered or shall maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard. • Speed on unpaved roads shall be reduced to less than 5 mph. • Any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed at the site access points within 30 minutes. • Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material shall be covered or watered twice daily. • All operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 15 mph. • Access points shall be washed or swept daily. • Construction sites shall be sandbagged for erosion control. • Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). • Pave or gravel construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road and use gravel aprons at truck exits. • Replace the ground cover of disturbed areas as quickly possible. • Prepared and submit a fugitive dust control plan SCAQMD prior to the start of construction. • Prepare and implement a Construction management Plan which will include Best Available Control Measures that will be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. • Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper tune. • All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from excessive idling. Excessive idling is defined as five (5) minutes or longer. • Minimize the simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. • The use of heavy construction equipment and earthmoving activity shall be suspended during Air Alerts when the Air Quality Index reaches the “Unhealthy” level. • Utilize low emission “clean diesel” equipment with new or modified engines that include diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters or Moyer Program retrofits that meet CARB best available control technology. • Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible. • Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from adjacent sensitive receptors (residential land uses). • Use haul trucks with on-road engines instead of off-road engines for on-site hauling. In addition, the Project is required to comply with the following mitigation measures established in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR (Section 4.3.8, Mitigation Measures, Air Quality) for construction and operation emissions: MM 4.3-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall work with the applicants of future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update to implement the 114 113 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 6 following measures, derived from the SCAQMD’s AQMP, where feasible, in order to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions, primarily related to vehicular travel and energy. Potential measures for consideration in future projects include: • Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. • Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. • Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hour. • Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. • Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. • Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. • 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. MM 4.3-2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga has developed the following requirements for specified land uses to reduce criteria pollutant emissions. These measures shall be verified either during review of project plans and specifications. Measures to be enforced include: • 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). • All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. • All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. • 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. • All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. • All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. MM 4.3-3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following construction-period measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including, but not limited to, compliance with SCAQMD Rules as described below. These measures shall be verified either during review of project plans and specifications and/or during construction. Construction-period measures to be enforced include: • All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. 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. • 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- 115 114 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 7 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. • The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. • The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. • All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Control). • All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt). • All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. The following Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan Compliance measures are incorporated into the Project greenhouse gas emissions: • The Project will include pedestrian sidewalks and access to the adjacent land uses and transit/circulation network. • The Project will provide bicycle parking/bicycle racks, per City of Rancho Cucamonga and State of California Building Code requirements. • The Project is located along Archibald Avenue which provides Class II bike lanes for access to the site. • The Project will provide designated parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles to promote ride- sharing programs that reduce the pollutants generated by the vehicle use. • The Project is located along the Archibald Avenue Secondary Transit Corridor (Regional Service). • The Project will participate in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program which supports the development and maintenance of transit amenities, bus stops, shade/weather protection, seats, and bus shelters, and encourages further transit use in the City, is used for the development and maintenance of roadways and transportation infrastructure throughout the City, and helps in protecting and developing sensitive land resources, parks, open spaces and infrastructure throughout the city. • The Project will provide charging and fueling station for alternative fuel vehicles. • The Project will provide designated clean air vehicle parking spaces. • The Project will provide solar ready infrastructure. • The Project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the site. • The Project will implement pedestrian and bicycle connections to the local transportation network. • The Project will incorporate smart growth practices which limits the impacts on natural resources, energy, air and water quality. • The Project will promote green practices in conserving energy by implementing energy- efficient design for heating, cooling, and lighting. • The Project will comply the State of California Title 24 Building Standards (CalGreen) requirements. 116 115 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 8 • The Project design will incorporate measures that reduce energy use through solar orientation by taking advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping, and sunscreens. • The Project will meet the CalGreen building code requirements. • The Project will comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga green building principles. • The Project will incorporate low-flow fixtures and faucets to reduce water usage. • The Project will participate in the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) water conservation and recycling program. • The Project will install drought tolerant, native landscapes and minimize the amount of turf and sod installed. • The Project will install water efficient irrigation and provide efficient site maintenance. • The Project will comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Programs regarding waste management. • The Project will work with City of Rancho Cucamonga and Burrtec Waste Industries to prepare a construction waste management plan. The following Project Design features are incorporated into the Project as best management practices for noise: DF-1 Provide an eight (8) foot high CMU block or tilt-up concrete wall along both ends of the loading docks/back of building area for buildings 3 and 4. DF-2 Provide an eight (8) foot high CMU block or tilt-up concrete wall along the southern edge of the loading docks area for building 1. DF-3 All rooftop mounted HVAC equipment shall be fully shielded or enclosed from the line of sight of adjacent residential uses. Shielding/parapet wall shall be at least as high as the equipment. DF-4 Truck deliveries, loading/unloading activity, and trash pick-up shall be limited to daytime (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) hours only. DF-5 Limit engine idling time for all trucks to 5 minutes or less. DF-6 Construction-related noise activities shall comply with the requirements set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66.050(D)(4) for adjacency to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, adjacency to a commercial or industrial use. DF-7 No impact pile driving activities shall be allowed on the Project site. DF-8 During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices and equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. Idling equipment should be turned off when not in use. DF-9 Locate staging area, generators and stationary construction equipment as far from the northwest property line, as reasonably feasible. DF-10 Obtain a construction work permit from the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to starting construction. Utilities All utilities and public services are currently available on, or adjacent to, the Project site. Utility and Service providers are as follows: • Electricity: Southern California Edison • Water: Cucamonga Valley Water District • Sewer: Burrtec Waste Industries 117 116 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 9 • Cable: Time Warner Cable, Verizon • Gas: Southern California Gas • Telephone: Verizon, AT&T • School: Cucamonga School District Sewer and Water Facilities The Project is served by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) sewer system, which has wastewater treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) at the RP-1 and RP-4 treatment plants. There is an existing 8” sewer line in 7th Street currently terminating approximately 200’ east of Archibald Avenue, which will be extended east on site to service all 4 parcels/buildings within the Project. There is an existing 18” water line in 7th Street, which will provide fire, domestic and landscape services for Parcels/Buildings 1, 2 & 4 and, a 6” water line in Acacia Street which will provide domestic and landscape service for Parcel/Building 3 currently servicing the site. Fire service for Parcel/Building 3 may be directly off the existing 6” Acacia Street line or may be looped on site to connect the 7th Street and Acacia Street lines if direct flow is inadequate. All existing utility lines will be extended by the Developer, as needed. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings) Surrounding properties are within the GI Zone; to the north, south, and west are smaller parcels housing freestanding, one-story structures and the parcel to the east is larger, also with a freestanding, one-story structure. Surrounding structures are industrial in nature. The nearest residence to the Project site is an existing residential dwelling unit located approximately 56 feet to the northeast of the site and residential homes located approximately 140 feet southwest of the site. The Project site is not located adjacent or proximate to a state scenic highway. The Project site does not contain scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The Project site is adjacent to the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe railroad tracks, which run along the eastern boundary of the site. Please reference the discussions in Section 1. Aesthetics, and Table 1-1, Adjacent Properties and Uses, for more details regarding surrounding land uses and setting. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or partici- pation agreement.) None. 118 117 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FIGURES 119 118 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 11 Figure 1 Regional Location Map Source: Google Maps www.google.com/maps 120 119 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 12 Figure 2 Vicinity Map Source: Google Maps www.google.com/maps SITE 121 120 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 13 Figure 3 Tentative Parcel Map Source: Project Plans (Appendix J) 122 121 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 14 Figure 4 Site Plan - DRC 2018-00529 Source: Project Plans (Appendix J) 123 122 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 15 Figure 5 Elevations Building 1 Building 2 124 123 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 16 Figure 5 Elevations, continued Building 3 Building 4 Source: Project Plans (Appendix J) 125 124 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 17 Figure 6 TTM 37439 Conceptual Grading Plan Source: Project Plans (Appendix J) 126 125 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 18 Figure 7 Site Drainage Plan Source: Project Plans (Appendix J) 127 126 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 19 Figure 8 Cross-Sections Source: Project Plans (Appendix J) 128 127 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 20 II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Energy Noise Wildfire Geology/Soils Population/Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance 129 128 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 21 III.DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, the following finding is made: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 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 standards, 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. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) 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. 10-8-2019 Signature Date 130 129 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 22 IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 131 130 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 23 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 132 131 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 24 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT 1. AESTHETICS. Source(s): City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan EIR (2010 GPEIR), Section 4.1 Aesthetics; Project Plans (Appendix J); Rancho Cucamonga Property Information Report, (City GIS, Appendix A); Public Records published by Realist (Appendix K); Google Earth Aerial Photographs; and visual inspection of Project site. SUBSTANTIATION: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 210991, would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X The City of Rancho Cucamonga is situated at the southern base of the eastern extent of the San Gabriel Mountain range. In addition, the San Bernardino Mountains are located just east of the San Gabriel Mountains, separated by Interstate 15 and the Cajon Pass. Views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are available from most areas within the City and provide a significant scenic backdrop for the community. North-south roadways, including Archibald Avenue (Project site is adjacent), Haven Avenue, and Etiwanda Avenue, provide unobstructed views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and conversely, from the foothills, of the lower-lying valley to the south. Archibald Avenue is one of fifteen (15) major streets within the City that have been designated as Special Boulevards. The City recognizes other scenic resources, including remaining stands of eucalyptus windrows, scattered vineyards and orchards, and natural vegetation in flood-control channels and utility corridors. The foothills at the northern end of the City provide views of wide open spaces, steep slopes, and natural vegetation, with limited development. The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is surrounded by general industrial land use to the north, south, east and west; with a pocket of seasoned low-density residential use (2-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) to the southwest. It is further noted that the properties adjacent north of Acacia Street are improved with older single family residences which have an underlying General Plan Land 1 Public Resources Code Section 21099 pertains to “Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit- Oriented Infill Projects.” The Project does not meet any of the criteria of a transit-oriented development. Therefore, the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21099 are not applicable. 133 132 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 25 Use designation and zoning classification of General Industrial. Any single-family uses within these houses would be considered legal non-conforming. The Project site is adjacent to the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe railroad tracks, which run along the eastern boundary of the site. No designated scenic highways are present in or near the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest officially designated scenic highway is State Route (SR) 2 (Angeles Crest Scenic Highway), located on the north side of the San Gabriel Mountains and approximately 12 miles from the northern City boundary. Another designated scenic highway is the SR-38 (Rim of the World Scenic Highway), which is approximately 24 miles east of the City’s boundary. These scenic highways are located on the western, northern, and eastern slopes of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, far from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere of Influence. The Project proposes the on-site construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area, plus associated parking and site improvements. Given the Project site’s location at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street, the Project building improvements, most notably proposed Building 1, will have a significant visible presence from Archibald Avenue (exterior building elevations vary from 29’6” to 30’6” in height above finished grade). As stated above, Archibald Avenue is one of fifteen (15) major streets within the City that have been designated as Special Boulevards which provides for extensive landscape setback areas to preserve the existing view corridors. The Special Boulevards include landscape and hardscape design, trails, and setback standards that are consistent with the development guidelines within the City. Per the General Plan (p. LU-90), Special Boulevards serve to create scenic corridors and attractive travel ways that will orient travelers and enhance foreground and distant views. Building 1, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street, is a proposed 17,300 square foot light-industrial warehouse with a west elevation building height varying from 29’6” to 30’6” above the finished site grade. Building 1 will be set back 30 feet from Archibald Avenue in compliance with the Archibald Avenue Special Boulevard street designation to preserve the view corridor (it is noted, as the Project site’s Archibald Avenue street frontage is less than 225 feet, the 45-foot Special Boulevard set back is not applicable). Based on the above, the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista as it will not hinder any foreground and/or distant views to those who live, work, traverse or visit the Project area. Any impacts would be less than significant. 134 133 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 26 Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 210992, would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is currently vacant with seasonal vegetation. There are no trees, no building improvements, and no site improvements. There are no rock outcroppings on the Project site. The Project site is not located adjacent or proximate to a state scenic highway. The Project site does not contain scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No impacts would occur. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 210992, would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? X The Project site is surrounded by general industrial land use to the north, south, east and west; with a pocket of seasoned low density residential use (2-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) to the southwest. It is further noted that the properties adjacent north of Acacia Street are improved with older single family residences (legal non-conforming use). Adjacent properties are summarized in Table 1-1, Adjacent Properties and Uses. 2 Public Resources Code Section 21099 pertains to “Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit- Oriented Infill Projects.” The Project does not meet any of the criteria of a transit-oriented development. Therefore, the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21099 are not applicable. 135 134 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 27 Table 1-1 Adjacent Properties and Uses Location/Address/APN(s) Ownership Land Size (Ac) GP/ Zoning(1) Use Comments North Archibald Avenue & Acacia Street/9029 Archibald Avenue /0209-211-11 Cucamonga County Water District(2) 5.175 GI/GI Quasi-Public Facility Service yard, operations warehouse (older/ metal butler building); well head / pump equipment noted. Situated at Project site elbow. 8th Street & Cottage Avenue/9851 8th Street/0209-193-09 Mandeville Family Investment 5.85 GI/GI Light Industrial/ Warehouse Five building concrete tilt up (CTU) Multi- Tenant Light Industrial Business Park totaling 45,856 sq. ft.; built 1986. Acacia Street & Cottage Avenue/8956 Cottage Avenue/0209-192-19 & 20 Sampson Family Trust 0.50 0.50 1.00 GI/GI Light Industrial/ Warehouse Two building CTU Multi-Tenant Light Industrial Park totaling 17,436 sq. ft. (9,336 & 8,100 sq. ft.); built 1988. Archibald Avenue & 8th Street/Belmont Avenue/0209- 191-01 thru 17, 0209-192-01 thru 12 Various owners 7,100 to 7,500 sq. ft. GI/GI Older SFR’s Pocket of older single-family residences (SFR’s) (±24 dwelling units [DUs]), built 1920-1950’s, Legal non-conforming use. South Archibald Avenue & 7th Street/92125-55 Archibald/0209- 211-44, 45, 48 LS Business Park, et al 5.08 3.94 5.04 14.06 GI/GI Light Industrial/ Business Park Scheu Business Center, 13 multi-tenant CTU buildings, totaling ±316,851 sq. ft.; built 1981-88. 7th Street, East of Archibald Avenue/0209-211-37 Cucamonga County Water District(2) 5,000 SF (est.) GI/GI Well Site Commercial well owned & operated by Cucamonga Valley Water District. 7th Street, (East end of cul-de- sac)/9859 7th Street/0209-211-46 SBC V, LLC 4.72 GI/GI Light Industrial Distribution Warehouse Appears to be the last phase of Scheu Business Center development; ±95,369 sq. ft., built 2009. East Hermosa, S. of 8th Street/9050 Hermosa/0209-211-50 T-C Hermosa Avenue 19.4 GI/GI Light Industrial Distribution Warehouse Large 468,682 sq. ft. distribution warehouse, built 2004. Located adjacent east of the Project site. West SWC Archibald Avenue & 8th Street/9669 8th Street & 8937 Archibald Avenue/0209-171-13 & 14 Gwendolyn Potter 1.18 0.50 1.68 GI/GI Older Residential Units Five small, older, free standing wood frame residential DUs; legal-non- conforming use. W/S Archibald Avenue, S. of 8th Street/8968 Archibald Avenue/0209-171-15 Keystone Nps LLC 4.375 GI/GI Charter School Springs Charter School, k-12; 18,549 sq. ft. facility, Spanish Style architecture, built 1924. NWQ Archibald Avenue & 7th Street/9004-32 Archibald/0209- 171-41 thru-47 Inland Corp 12.14 GI/GI Light Ind. Business Park 6-Bldg CTU light industrial Business Park (Inland Business Park); built 1979, plus self-storage facility on Parcel 41. NWC Archibald Avenue & 7th Street/0209-171-48 Hamka Corp, et al 1.13 GI/GI Parking Lot Asphalt paved/wrought iron perimeter fencing. Notes: 1 GI = General Industrial 2 Cucamonga County Water District ownership per public records published by CoreLogic [Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) is presumed to be a subsequent entity of the former Cucamonga County Water District]. 136 135 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 28 The Project site’s proposed light-industrial warehouse use conforms with the underlying General Plan Land Use designation (General Industrial) and Zoning classification (General Industrial; GI). Furthermore, the Project is in balance with surrounding land use adjacent to the site based on the description of the surrounding uses contained in Table 1-1. Therefore, the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The visual quality will be consistent with the surrounding uses, which is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. Since the area is almost fully developed, the Project is “in-fill” in nature. Any impacts would be less than significant. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 210993, would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X The Project site is located in an area that is subject to existing nighttime lighting from surrounding light-industrial warehouse and business park uses, legal non-conforming residential uses, and street lighting along Archibald Avenue and 7th Street, and to a lesser extent along Acacia Street. Street lighting along 7th Street is currently limited to the south side of the street, only. The Project includes widening 7th Street along the Project site’s frontage and construction of half-width street improvements to include asphalt paving, concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. The Project site has limited frontage along its northern boundary with Acacia Street; Acacia Street will be widened modestly to accommodate a knuckle design corner transition to Cottage Avenue. The Project does not include any new street lighting along Acacia Street. Development of the Project site, as proposed, would increase the number of streetlights in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the Project development includes security lighting attached to the exterior walls of the four proposed buildings to illuminate exterior walkways and parking areas. No freestanding light standards in the parking lot area were noted in the review of the Site Plan provided. Daytime glare caused by sunlight refraction off of the Project is considered nominal due to the Project type (concrete tilt-up light-industrial warehouse with limited glass lines, relatively limited exposure to Archibald Avenue due to site shape, and limited traffic along 7th Street which terminates into a cul-de-sac at the east end of the subject site adjacent to the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe railroad tracks/right-of-way). The design and placement of light fixtures are subject to compliance with City standards that require shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid nighttime glare. On-site illumination 3 Public Resources Code Section 21099 pertains to “Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit- Oriented Infill Projects.” The Project does not meet any of the criteria of a transit-oriented development. Therefore, the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21099 are not applicable. 137 136 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 29 levels (provided for street lighting, parking, circulation, and pedestrian areas) will comply with Development Code standards and will be shielded from adjacent properties. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the Project site. The Project will create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Project’s required compliance with City standards would assist in reducing impacts to a less than significant level. 138 137 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 30 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. Source(s): City General Plan EIR, Section 4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources, Exhibit 4.2-1, Farmland Resources; City General Plan, Land Use Plan, Figure LU-2; City Zoning Map, accessed December 5, 2018; and Google Maps. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X The Project site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is zoned General Industrial and the Project proposes the construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area. Like many Southern California communities, Rancho Cucamonga has an extensive agricultural past. Favorable climatic conditions and an abundant water supply allowed early settlers to develop successful agricultural lands with crop production that included citrus, olives, peaches, and grapes, among others. Limited evidence of the City’s past agricultural industry can still be found within the Alta Loma, Cucamonga, and Etiwanda areas of the City through remnant vineyards, citrus groves, olive groves, and support structures. While the City of Rancho Cucamonga is largely developed, there are pockets of agricultural land in the form of vineyards and orchards that are remnants of its historic agricultural past. These consist of 3- to 30-acre parcels spread out in various locations of the City. At present, there is a limited amount of approximately 209 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance remaining 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. Further, as mentioned above, 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 Program EIR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses 139 138 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 31 as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The Project site is surrounded by general industrial land use to the north, south, east and west; with a pocket of seasoned low density residential use (2-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) to the southwest. The Project site is not designated nor is it adjacent to any lands designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Based on the above, the Project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Furthermore, as set forth in the General Plan (p. 4.2-4), there are no lands under Williamson Act contracts within the City limits. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in Government Code section 51104(g))? X There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). No impacts would occur. 140 139 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 32 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is zoned General Industrial and the Project proposes the construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area. The Project site is surrounded by general industrial land use to the north, south, east and west; with a pocket of seasoned low density residential (2-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) to the southwest. The Project would not involve 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. No impacts would occur. 141 140 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 33 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Source(s): Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-23-2019 (AQ/GHG Analysis, Appendix B). Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the AQ/GHG Analysis, unless otherwise noted. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Coastal General Forecast Area, and the Northwest San Bernardino Valley Air Monitoring Area 32. The SCAQMD has established air quality emissions thresholds for criteria air pollutants for the purposes of determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. By complying with the thresholds of significance, the Project would be in compliance with the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and with federal and state air quality standards. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and Regional Plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Project is the AQMP. The following discussion centers on any potential inconsistencies in the Project with the AQMP. The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the Project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states: "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." 142 141 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 34 It should be noted that strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: 1. Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; and 2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. The following is an analysis of these two consistency indicators: Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations The results of the short-term construction emission levels and long term operational emission levels show that the Project would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. (Reference Tables Table 3-3, Regional Construction Emissions – Unmitigated, Table 3-4, Regional Construction Emissions – Mitigated, and Table 3-7, Localized Construction Emissions for construction emissions and Table 3-5, Regional Operational Emissions operational emissions). Therefore, the Project would not contribute to the exceedance of an air pollutant concentration standard and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by SCAG, 2016, includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The Project is consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and land use projections for a site with a General Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the assumptions in the latest version of the AQMP (Reference Tables Table 3-3, Regional Construction Emissions – Unmitigated, Table 3- 4, Regional Construction Emissions – Mitigated, and Table 3-7, Localized Construction Emissions for construction emissions and Table 3-5, Regional Operational Emissions operational emissions). Based on the analysis above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Any impacts would be less than significant. 143 142 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 35 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? X Construction Emissions The following provides a discussion of the methodology used to calculate regional construction air emissions and an analysis of the Project’s short-term construction emissions for the criteria pollutants. Methodology Construction of the Project is assumed to begin in the year 2018 and last approximately 14 months. The construction schedule represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent. The Project’s construction schedule has been adjusted to meet the 2019 opening year timeline. Construction activity will consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction phases are not expected to overlap. It is expected that approximately 33,500 cubic yards of material will be imported to the site during the grading phase. For purposes of the AQ/GHG Analysis, the import site will be located within a 5-mile radius of the Project site. The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) was used to calculate criteria air pollutants from the construction and operation of the Project. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions (such as GHG emissions from off-site energy generation, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use – discussed in Section 7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Initial Study). The model also identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. The CalEEMod default construction equipment list is based on survey data and the size of the site; however, the equipment quantity has been adjusted for building construction phase in order to meet the 2019 open year timeline. The parameters used to estimate construction emissions, such as the worker and vendor trips and trip lengths, utilize the CalEEMod defaults. Table 3-1, Construction Equipment Assumptions Phase and a construction 144 143 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 36 equipment list. Table 3-1 Construction Equipment Assumptions Phase Phase1 Equipment1 Amount1 Hours Per Day1 Soil Disturbance Rate (Acres) 8hr- Day)2 Equipment Daily Disturbance Footprint (Acres) Total Phase Daily Disturbance Footprint (Acres) Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 1.0 3.0 5.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 0.5 2.0 Grading Excavators 2 8 0.0 1.0 3.375 Graders 1 8 0.5 0.375 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 0.5 0.375 Scrapers 2 8 0.5 0.750 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 0.5 0.875 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 0.0 0.0 1.5 Forklifts 3 8 0.0 0.0 Generator Sets 1 8 0.0 0.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 0.5 1.5 Welders 1 8 0.0 0.0 Paving Pavers 2 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paving Equipment 2 8 0.0 0.0 Rollers 2 8 0.0 0.0 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 CalEEMod Defaults 2 The quantity of Building Construction equipment has been increased to fast track the process in order to meet the timeline. The quantity of fugitive dust estimated by CalEEMod is based on the pieces of equipment used during and grading. CalEEMod estimates the worst-case fugitive dust impacts will occur during the grading phase. The maximum daily disturbance footprint would be 5.0 acres per 8-hour day with all equipment in use. 145 144 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 37 Air Quality Regional Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD has established air quality emissions thresholds for criteria air pollutants for the purposes of determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment per Section 15002(g) of the CEQA Guidelines. By complying with the thresholds of significance, the Project would be in compliance with the AQMP, and the federal and state air quality standards. Table 3-2, SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds, lists the air quality significance thresholds for the six criteria air pollutants analyzed in this report. Lead is not included as part of this analysis as the Project is not expected to emit lead in any significant measurable quantity. Table 3-2 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds Pollutant Construction (lbs./day) Operation (lbs./day) NOX 100 55 VOC 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOX 150 150 CO 550 550 Regional Air Quality Impacts from Construction Regional air quality emissions include both on-site and off-site emissions associated with construction of the Project. Construction traffic is also included in this analysis. Construction traffic is expected to be heaviest during the grading phase when approximately 33,500 cubic yards of material will be imported to the site. Approximately 4,188 hauling trips will be required to import the earthwork material. One truckload carries 16 cubic yards of material per trip. Trucks are assumed to make two trips, one loaded and one empty return. Regional daily emissions of criteria pollutants are compared to the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. The Project must follow all standard SCAQMD rules and requirements with regards to fugitive dust control, as described below. Compliance with the dust control is considered a standard requirement and included as part of the Project’s design features (listed above), not mitigation, as this is a regulatory requirement. The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized in Table 3-3, Regional Construction Emissions - Unmitigated. 146 145 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 38 Table 3-3 Regional Construction Emissions - Unmitigated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)1 Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 4.68 48.28 23.49 0.04 9.69 6.22 Grading 6.26 99.20 42.44 0.18 8.81 4.67 Building Construction 6.51 51.64 44.73 0.10 5.83 3.27 Paving 2.55 15.31 15.41 0.02 0.99 0.80 Architectural Coating 116.50 2.03 4.23 0.01 0.67 0./27 Maximum1 116.50 99.20 44.73 0.18 9.69 6.22 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) Yes No No No No No 1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter; includes both on-site and off-site Project emissions. As shown in Table 3-3, regional daily emissions of criteria pollutants are expected to be below the allowable thresholds of significance for all criteria pollutants, with the exception of VOC. In order to ensure the Project emissions levels are within the allowable threshold limits, Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1, below, shall be implemented during architectural coating and painting to reduce daily VOC emissions. MM-AQ-1: During architectural coating and painting, the contractor shall limit the amount of daily building surface area to be painted to 14,000 square feet or less. The estimated maximum daily construction emissions with incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1, are summarized in Table 3-4, Regional Construction Emissions - Mitigated. 147 146 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 39 Table 3-4 Regional Construction Emissions - Mitigated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)1 Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 4.68 48.28 23.49 0.04 9.69 6.22 Grading 6.26 99.20 42.44 0.18 8.81 4.67 Building Construction 6.51 51.64 44.73 0.10 5.83 3.27 Paving 2.55 15.31 15.41 0.02 0.99 0.80 Architectural Coating 68.75 2.02 4.23 0.01 0.67 0.27 Maximum1 71.31 99.20 44.73 0.18 9.69 6.22 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No 1 Maximum daily emissions during either summer or winter; includes both on-site and off-site Project emissions. 2 In order to meet the Project opening year 2019 timeframe, paving and architectural coating phases may have the potential to overlap and therefore the combined daily emissions of both phases are considered. Regional emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD standards for all criteria pollutants with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1. The Project’s short-term construction impact on regional air resources would be reduced to a less than significant level with compliance with Project design features, and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1. Operational Emissions Operational Assumptions Operational emissions occur over the life of the Project and are considered “long-term” sources of emissions. Operational emissions include both direct and indirect sources (mobile source emissions, energy source emissions, areas source emissions and other source emissions). • Mobile Source Emissions Mobile source emissions are the largest source of long-term air pollutants from the operation of the Project. Mobile sources are direct sources of project emissions that are primarily attributed to tailpipe exhaust and road dust (tire, brake, clutch, and road surface wear) from motor vehicles traveling to and from the site. Estimates of mobile source emissions require information on four parameters: trip generation, trip length, vehicle/fleet mix, and emission factors (quantity of emission for each mile traveled or time spent idling by each vehicle). 148 147 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 40 The trip generation rates for this Project are based on the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Weekday daily trip rates are based on the 10th edition, as estimated in the Scheu Business Center Update Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 9-18-2019 (Appendix H). Saturday and Sunday rates are based on CalEEMod default values. • Energy Source Emissions Energy usage includes both direct and indirect sources of emissions. Direct sources of emissions include on-site natural gas usage (non-hearth) for heating, while indirect emissions include electricity generated by offsite power plants. Natural gas use is measured in units of a thousand British Thermal Units (kBTU) per size metric for each land use subtype and electricity use is measured in kilowatt hours (kWh) per size metric for each land use subtype. CalEEMod divides building electricity and natural gas use into uses that are subject to Title 24 standards and those that are not. Lighting electricity usage is also calculated as a separate category in CalEEMod. For electricity, Title 24 uses include the major building envelope systems covered by Part 6 (California Energy Code) of Title 24, such as space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation. Non-Title 24 uses include all other end uses, such as appliances, electronics, and other miscellaneous plug-in uses. Because some lighting is not considered as part of the building envelope energy budget, and since a separate mitigation measure is applicable to this end use, CalEEMod makes lighting a separate category. For natural gas, uses are likewise categorized as Title 24 or Non-Title 24. Title 24 uses including building heating and hot water end uses. Non-Title 24 natural gas uses include cooking and appliances (including pool/spa heaters). The baseline values are based on the California Energy Commission sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey, and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey studies. • Area Source Emissions Area source emissions are direct sources of emissions that fall under four categories; hearths, consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. Per SCAQMD rule 445, no wood burning devices are allowed in developments; therefore, no wood hearths are included in this Project. Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications which emit ROGs during their product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries. Another main area source emission includes the operation of forklifts in the warehouse. It is assumed that each warehouse will use 1 (one) forklift. So, a total of 10 (ten) forklifts has been taken into account while calculating the area source emission. Area source emissions may also include the operation of forklifts or other off-road equipment that may be used on-site. It is assumed that approximately ten (10) forklifts will be in operation 149 148 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 41 simultaneously for 8-hours per day--260 days per year. This is considered a conservative estimate based on engineering judgment. • Other Sources of Operational Emissions Water. Greenhouse gas emissions are generated from the upstream energy required to supply and treat the water used on the Project site. Indirect emissions from water usage are counted as part of the Project’s overall impact. Waste. CalEEMod calculates the indirect GHG emissions associated with waste that is disposed of at a landfill. The program uses annual waste disposal rates from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) data for individual land uses. The program quantifies the GHG emissions associated with the decomposition of the waste which generates methane based on the total amount of degradable organic carbon. Regional Operational Emissions Long-term operational air pollutant impacts from the Project are shown in Table 3-5, Regional Operational Emissions, below. Table 3-5 Regional Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)1 Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Sources 3.56 22.98 48.41 0.16 11.40 3.16 Energy Sources 0.23 2.10 1.76 0.01 0.16 0.16 Area Sources 5.51 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total1 9.30 25.08 50.23 0.17 11.56 3.32 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No 1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter; includes both on-site and off-site Project emissions. The Project’s daily operational emissions will be below the applicable SCAQMD regional air quality standards and thresholds of significance, and the Project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impacts would be less than significant. 150 149 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 42 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to air pollution exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. For CEQA purposes, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as residencies, hospitals, and schools. The nearest existing sensitive receptors (residential homes) are located approximately 56 feet (approximately 17 meters) southwesterly of the Project site. The closest receptor distance on the mass rate LST look-up tables is 25 meters. Although receptors are located closer than 25 meters to the Project site, SCAQMD LST methodology states that projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. Therefore, the sensitive receptor distance from the site boundary is assumed to be 25 meters and the daily disturbance area is calculated to be 5.0 acres. As shown in the analysis in response to Section 3.b, local and regional Project construction and operational impacts are less than significant with the inclusion of Project adherence to SCAQMD Rules, Project design features, adherence to General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-1, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3, and incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1. Therefore, any impacts from implementation of the Project that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Localized Construction Emissions CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. The AQ/GHG Analysis identifies the following parameters in the Project design in order to compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables: • The off-road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions. • The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day. • Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment. • Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum emissions. Air quality emissions were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold (LST) Look-up Tables. Table 3-6, SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST), lists the Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) used to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or 151 150 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 43 contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of four applicable air pollutants for source receptor area (SRA) 32 – Northwest San Bernardino Valley. The nearest existing sensitive receptors (residential homes) are located approximately 56 feet (approximately 17 meters) southwesterly of the Project site. The closest receptor distance on the mass rate LST look-up tables is 25 meters. Although receptors are located closer than 25 meters to the Project site, SCAQMD LST methodology states that projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. Therefore, the sensitive receptor distance from the site boundary is assumed to be 25 meters and the daily disturbance area is calculated to be 5.0 acres. Table 3-6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) Pollutant Construction (lbs./day) Operational (lbs./day) NOX 270 270 CO 2,193 2,193 PM10 16 4 PM2.5 9 2 Table 3-7, Localized Construction Emissions illustrates the construction related localized emissions and compares the results to SCAQMD LST thresholds. Table 3-7 Localized Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)1 Activity NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 On-site Emissions 59.52 35.09 9.49 6.17 SCAQMD Construction Threshold2 270 3,437 59 16 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No 1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter; includes on-site project emissions only. 2 Reference 2006-2008 SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significant Thresholds for construction and operation. SRA- 32, Northwest San Bernardino Valley, 5-acre site, receptor distance 25 meters. As shown in Table 3-7, the emissions will be below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for localized construction emissions. Construction LST impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of Project design features as standard conditions of approval. 152 151 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 44 Diesel Particulate Matter – Construction The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions from the Project would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy diesel equipment used during construction. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30- year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. As shown in Table 3-4, Regional Construction Emissions - Mitigated, and in Table 3-7, Localized Construction Emissions, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed regional or local thresholds. Given the short-term construction schedule, the Project’s construction activity is not expected to be a long-term (i.e., 30 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk and a health risk assessment is not warranted. In September 2000, the CARB adopted the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, which recommends several control measures to reduce the risks associated with diesel particulate matter (DPM). The key elements of the Plan are to clean up existing engines through engine retrofit emission control devices, to adopt stringent standards for new diesel engines, to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel, and implement advanced technology emission control devices on diesel engines. To ensure the level of DPM exposure is reduced as much as possible, the Project shall implement the best available pollution control strategies to minimize potential health risks (see above). With implementation of these best available pollution control strategies, Project impacts from DPM would be less than significant. Asbestos - Construction Asbestos is a mineral fiber that has been used commonly in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire-retardant. When asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed by repair, remodeling or demolition activities, microscopic fibers become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause significant health problems. Based on the California Division of Mines and Geology General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, naturally occurring asbestos, found in serpentine and ultramafic rock, has not been shown to occur within in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during Project construction is small. However, in the event NOA is found on the site, the Project will be required to comply with the NESHAP standards. An Asbestos NESHAP Notification Form shall be completed and submitted to the CARB immediately upon discovery of the contaminant. The Project will be required to follow NESHAP standards for emissions control during site renovation, waste transport and waste disposal. This is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. A person certified in asbestos removal 153 152 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 45 procedures will be required to supervise on-site activities. By following the required asbestos abatement protocols, the Project impacts would be less than significant. Localized Operational Emissions Table 3-8, Localized Operational Emissions, shows the localized operational emissions and compares the results to SCAQMD LST thresholds of significance. Table 3-8 Localized Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)1 LST Pollutants NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (lbs./day) (lbs./day) (lbs./day) (lbs./day) On-site Emissions2 3.24 4.24 0.73 0.32 SCAQMD Operation Threshold3 270 2,193 4 2 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No 1 Maximum daily emissions in summer or winter. 2 Mobile source emissions include on-site vehicle emissions only. It is estimated that approximately 5% of mobile emissions will occur on the Project site. 3 Reference: 2006-2008 SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significant Thresholds for construction and operation Table C-1 through C-6; SRA 32, Northwest San Bernardino Valley, disturbance area of 5-acre and receptor distance of 25 meters. As shown in Table 3-8, emissions will be below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for localized operational emissions. Project impacts would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants – Operations A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health, and for which there is no concentration that does not present some risk. Typically, the primary source of TAC emissions for commercial land uses would be from on-site operations of diesel trucks. Diesel trucks emit diesel particulate matter (DPM) which is a known source of TACs. The Project would consist of an industrial business center uses that may attract heavy trucks for shipping and delivery purposes. Unlike a high cube truck distribution center, the Project is not expected to be a significant and continuous generator of truck traffic. Based on the Project’s trip generation, the Project is expected to generate a maximum of 1,191 trips per day, with approximately 6% heavy- heavy duty trucks. This would result in approximately 35 heavy trucks per day (one truck is expected to make 2 trips, entering and exiting). According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact: • If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or 154 153 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 46 • Toxic air contaminants from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater. Based on the Project’s trip generation, it is not anticipated that the Project would result in significant incremental increases in potential cancer risks to surrounding sensitive receptors. It should be noted however that a detailed health risk assessment has not been performed for this Project and in order to determine if the Project may have a significant impact related to hazardous air pollutants, the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis), prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003, recommends that if the Project is anticipated to create hazardous air pollutants through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the source of the hazardous air pollutants and the toxicity of the hazardous air pollutants should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility-wide health risk assessment (HRA). No HRA is required due to the fact that the Project will be required to adhere to SCAQMD Rules, incorporate Project design features, adhere to General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-1, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3, and incorporate of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1. This will ensure that impacts from TACs would be less than significant. Local CO Emission Impacts from Project‐Generated Vehicular Trips A CO hot spot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) that is above the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time of the publishing of the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the SCAB was designated nonattainment, and projects were required to perform hot spot analyses to ensure they did not exacerbate an existing problem. Since this time, the SCAB has achieved attainment status and the potential for hot spots caused by vehicular traffic congestion has been greatly reduced. In fact, the SCAQMD AQMP found that peak CO concentrations were primarily the result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, not traffic congestion. Additionally, the 2003 SCAQMD AQMP found that, at four of the busiest intersections in SCAB, there were no CO hot spot exceedances. The Scheu Business Center Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering, found that all study area intersections are anticipated to operate at a satisfactory LOS in both a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the addition of Project traffic and the recommended mitigation measures. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the Project would not significantly increase traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site that would lead to the formation of CO Hot Spots. The Project impact to CO Hot Spots is less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? X Land uses that commonly receive odor complaints include agricultural uses (farming and livestock), chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding facilities, food processing plants, landfills, refineries, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants. 155 154 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 47 Heavy-duty equipment in the Project area during construction will emit odors; however, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. The Project is required to comply with Rule 402 during construction, which states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The Project does not contain land uses that would typically be associated with significant odor emissions. The Project will also be required to comply with Rule 402 during operations. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the Project. The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Any impacts would be less than significant. 156 155 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 48 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Source(s): Habitat Assessment for the Approximately 13-Acre Greenfield Property, prepared by ELMT Consulting, 4-17-2019 (Habitat Assessment, Appendix C); City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation); and City General Plan EIR, Section 4.4, Biological Resources. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X A literature review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the Project site. In addition to the literature review, a general habitat assessment or field investigation of the Project site was conducted to document existing conditions and assess the potential for special-status biological resources to occur within the Project site. These are discussed in detail, below. Literature Review Prior to conducting the Habitat Assessment, a literature review and records search was conducted for special-status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the Project site were determined through a query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) QuickView Tool in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5, the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of special- status species published by CDFW, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings. All available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site were reviewed to understand existing site conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred within the Project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special-status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special- status and non-special-status biological resources, as well as the following resources: • Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1994-2018); • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service 157 156 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 49 (NRCS), Soil Survey; • USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; and • USFWS Endangered Species Profiles. The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring within the Project site. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special-status species and determine the distance from the Project site. Habitat Assessment/Field Investigation Following the literature review, the Project biologist inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the Project site on September 26, 2018. Plant communities and land cover types identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects throughout the Project site. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed prior to the site investigation to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support the movement of wildlife through the area. These areas identified on aerial photography were then walked during the field investigation. All plant and wildlife species observed, as well as dominant plant species within each plant community, were recorded. Plant species observed during the field investigation were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed during the field investigation and identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. Wildlife detections were made through observation of scat, trails, tracks, burrows, nests, and/or visual and aural observation. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on-site plant communities and land cover types, and presence of potential jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were noted. Existing Site Condition On-site elevation ranges from approximately 1,086 to 1,098 feet above mean sea level and generally slopes from north to south with no areas of topographic relief. Based on the National Resources Conservation Services information from the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey the Project site is underlain by the following soil units: Hanford sandy loam (0 to 5 percent slopes), and Hanford coarse sandy loam (2 to 9 percent slopes). Soils on-site have been mechanically disturbed from existing development. Soils on-site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from historic land uses (i.e., grading activities and surrounding development). The Project site is located within a heavily developed area in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site occurs in an area surrounded by land that has undergone a conversion from natural habitats into residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is bordered by residential and commercial land uses to the north, industrial and commercial land uses to the west, commercial land uses to the south, and industrial land uses to the east. 158 157 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 50 Vegetation Due to existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site primarily consists of vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances that was historically used for agricultural land uses. The Project site no longer is used for agricultural activities but has been subject to on-going weed abatement activities and disturbance associated with surrounding development. These disturbances have eliminated and/or greatly disturbed the natural plant communities that once occurred within the boundaries of the Project site. It should be noted that dirt stockpiles and debris piles (from illegal dumping) were observed on the southern boundary of the project site, along 7th Street. No native plant communities would be impacted from implementation of the Project. The Project site contains a land cover type that would be classified as developed. Early successional and non-native weedy plant species compose a majority of the Project site as a result of the on-going disking/weed abatement activities. Plant species observed on- site include Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), doveweed (Croton setigerus), Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus), wild oat (Avena sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), jimson weed (Datura wrightii), pigweed (Chenopodium album), and golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides). • Wildlife Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. The following provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the Project site. The discussion is to be used as a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field investigation was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. The Project site provides limited habitat for wildlife species except those adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances and development. 1. Fish No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent from the Project site. 2. Amphibians No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur on the Project site and are presumed absent. 159 158 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 51 Reptiles During the field investigation Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes) was the only reptilian species observed on-site. Common reptilian species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances that have the potential to occur on-site include western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans), alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer annectens). Due to the high level of anthropogenic disturbances on-site, and surrounding development, no special-status reptilian species are expected to occur within Project site. 3. Birds The Project site provides minimal foraging habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. Bird species detected during the field investigation included American kestrel (Falco sparverius), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Haemorhouse mexicanus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya). 4. Mammals During the field investigation cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) was the only mammalian species observed on-site. Common mammalian species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances that have the potential to occur within the project site include Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). • Nesting Birds No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the September 26, 2018 field investigation, which was conducted outside of the avian nesting season. The Project site provides limited nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area. Most of the nesting habitat is associated with the eucalyptus trees found along the northeast corner of the project site. The open, disturbed habitat on-site also provides nesting opportunities for ground-nesting species such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season (reference Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1, any impacts would be less than significant. MM-BIO-1: No grubbing, clearing, or grading shall occur during the general songbird and raptor nesting season, which is generally January 15 to August 31. All grading permits, improvement plans, and the final map 160 159 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 52 shall state the same. If grubbing, clearing, or grading is proposed to occur during the general bird nesting season, a pre-construction survey within all suitable habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active bird nests are present within the disturbance area. If there are no nesting birds (includes nest building or other breeding/nesting behavior) within the disturbance area, clearing, grubbing, and grading shall be allowed to proceed. If active nests or nesting birds are observed within the disturbance area, the biologist shall delineate a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around each nest. Construction activities within the buffer shall not be permitted until nesting behavior has ceased, nests have failed, or young have fledged. The biological monitor may modify the buffer or propose other recommendations in order to minimize disturbance to nesting birds. • Jurisdictional Areas There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and bank under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site during the habitat assessment that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW. Therefore, regulatory approvals from the Corps, Regional Board, and/or CDFW will not be required for implementation of the Project. • Special-Status Biological Resources The CNDDB Rarefind 5 and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were queried for reported locations of special-status plant and wildlife species as well as special-status natural plant communities in the Guasti USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle. Only one quadrangle was queried since the Project site is already developed, completely surrounded by existing development, and does not connect with any natural areas or native plant communities in the region. The Habitat Assessment evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the Project site to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special-status plant and wildlife species. The literature search identified twelve (12) special-status plant species and thirty-two (32) special-status wildlife species as having potential to occur within the Guasti USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle. No special-status plant communities have been recorded within the Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the Project site based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Species determined to have the potential to occur within the general vicinity of the project site are presented in Table C-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources, provided in 161 160 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 53 Attachment C of the Habitat Assessment. 1. Special-Status Plants According to the CNDDB and CNPS, twelve (12) special-status plant species have been recorded in the Guasti quadrangle. No special-status plant species were observed on-site during the habitat assessment. The Project site primarily consists of vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances including on-going disking/weed abatement activities. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on-site which has removed suitable habitat for special- status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it was determined that the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area and are presumed to be absent from the Project site. No focused surveys are recommended. 2. Special-Status Wildlife According to the CNDDB, thirty-two (32) special-status wildlife species have been reported in the Guasti quadrangle. No special-status wildlife species were observed on-site during the habitat assessment. The Project site primarily consists of vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances including on-going disking/weed abatement activities. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on-site which has greatly reduced potential foraging opportunities for wildlife species. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the Project site has a moderate potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), burrowing owl, and horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). Further it was determined that the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the other special-status wildlife species known to occur in the area since the Project site has been heavily disturbed from on-site disturbances and existing development. In order to ensure impacts to the aforementioned species do not occur from implementation of the Project, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 are required. With implementation of the Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, impacts to the aforementioned species would be less than significant. MM-BIO-2: A 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl is required. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance in accordance with survey requirements contained CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to avoid direct take of burrowing owl. If burrowing owl are determined to occupy the Project site or immediate vicinity, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department will be notified, and avoidance measures will be implemented, as appropriate, pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code, the MBTA, and the mitigation guidelines prepared by the CDFW (2012). The following measures are recommended in the CDFW guidelines to avoid impacts on an active burrow: 162 161 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 54 • No disturbance should occur within 50 meters (approximately 160 feet) of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season. • No disturbance should occur within 75 meters (approximately 250 feet) of occupied burrows during the breeding season. For unavoidable impacts, passive or active relocation of burrowing owls would need to be implemented by a qualified biologist outside the breeding season, in accordance with procedures set by the CDFW. Based on regional significance, the potential occurrence of burrowing owl within the Project site is described in further detail below. Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California Species of Special Concern. It is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of arid and semi-arid environments with well-drained, level to gently-sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground. Burrowing owls are dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (such as ground squirrels) whose burrows are used for roosting and nesting. The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, stand-pipes, and dry culverts. Burrowing mammals may burrow beneath rocks and debris or large, heavy objects such as abandoned cars, concrete blocks, or concrete pads. They also require open vegetation allowing line-of-sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage as well as watch for predators. No burrowing owls or recent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or white wash) was observed during the field investigation. The Project site is unvegetated and/or vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow for line-of-sight observation favored by burrowing owls. However, the Project site lacks suitable burrows (>4 inches in diameter) capable of providing roosting and nesting opportunities. Further, several power poles, overhead power lines, ornamental trees, and tall office buildings surround the Project site which decrease the likelihood that burrowing owls would occur on the project site as these features provide perching opportunities for larger raptor species (i.e., red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis]) that prey on burrowing owls. Based on the results of the field investigation, it was determined that the Project site has a moderate to low potential to support burrowing owls and focused surveys are not recommended. However, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to development to ensure burrowing owl remain absent from the Project site (reference Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, above). • Critical Habitat Under the federal Endangered Species Act, “Critical Habitat” is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or 163 162 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 55 biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS regarding activities they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated Critical Habitat. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a CWA Permit from the Corps). If a there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing the funding or permit would consult with the USFWS. The Project site is not located with federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 4.2 miles northeast of the Project site for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat from site development will not occur and consultation with the USFWS for impacts to Critical Habitat will not be required for implementation of the Project. In conclusion, the Project will not 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. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, any impacts would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X Reference the discussion in Section 4.a, above. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, any impacts would be less than significant. 164 163 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 56 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X According to the Habitat Assessment, The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site during the habitat assessment that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps. Regulatory approvals from the Corps will not be required for implementation of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X According to the Habitat Assessment, habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources. The Project will be confined to existing disturbed areas and is surrounded by development, which has removed natural plant communities from the surrounding area. The Project site is isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages, and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of stepping stone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the Project site to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages. 165 164 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 57 Therefore, the Project would not 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. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X Per the Habitat Assessment, due to existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site primarily consists of vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances that was historically used for agricultural land uses. The Project site no longer is used for agricultural activities but has been subject to on-going weed abatement activities and disturbance associated with surrounding development. The Project site contains a land cover type that would be classified as developed. Plant species observed on- site include Russian thistle, puncture vine, doveweed, Spanish lotus, wild oat, ragweed, prickly lettuce, ripgut, red brome, jimson weed, pigweed, and golden crownbeard. Based on this information, there are no trees that would fall under the purview of Municipal Code (Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X According to the GPEIR, neither the City nor the Sphere of Influence lie within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan. No impacts would occur. 166 165 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 58 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Source(s): Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the 13.23 Scheu Business Center Project Site (APN 209-211-024) Located Immediately Northeast of the Intersection of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County prepared by Archaeological Associates, dated January, 2019 (Cultural Assessment, Appendix D1); Pre-Construction Paleontological Assessment of the 13.23 Scheu Business Center Project Site (APN 209-211- 024) Located Immediately Northeast of the Intersection of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in the City Of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, prepared by Archaeological Associates, dated 5-1-2019 (Paleontological Assessment, Appendix D2); and Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Industrial/Warehouse Building, NEC Archibald Avenue & Seventh Street, prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 30, 2013 (Geo Investigation, Appendix E-1). SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X Topographically, the Project site is flat and devoid of significant relief. Elevations range from a maximum of 1095 feet above mean sea level along the northern Project boundary to a minimum of approximately 1085 feet along the southern Project boundary. The Project site is largely devoid of vegetation due to weed abatement although a sparse cover of exotic weeds and forbes exists. There are no standing structures within the Project boundaries although numerous piles of soil have been placed along the southern Project boundary. The statute that defines a “historic resource”, Public Resources Code (PRC) §5020.1(j), identifies as including but not limited to any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.” More specifically, CEQA guidelines explain that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (14 Cal. Code Regs §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Ibid). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: 167 166 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 59 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. 4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)) The results of the records search and field study were negative for the presence of prehistoric and historic resources within the project area. Therefore, no further work in conjunction with prehistoric or historic resources is warranted or recommended including monitoring of earth disturbing activities connected with future development. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X Please reference the discussion in 5.a., above. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5. Should any archaeological resources be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance activities, the Project shall comply with Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 and MM-TCR-2. Please see Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X 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, it is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Any impacts would be less than significant. 168 167 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 60 6. ENERGY. Source(s): Scheu Business Center Energy Conservation Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-25-2019 (ECA, Appendix L). • Any tables or figures in this section are from the ECA, unless otherwise noted. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? X Background Information There are many different types and sources of energy produced and consumed in the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) categorizes energy by primary and secondary sources, renewable and nonrenewable sources, and by the different types of fossil fuels. Primary energy is captured directly from natural resources and includes fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and renewable sources of energy. Electricity is a secondary energy source that results from the transformation of primary energy sources. A renewable energy source includes solar energy from the sun, geothermal energy from heat inside the earth, wind energy, biomass from plants, and hydropower from flowing water. Nonrenewable energy sources include petroleum products, hydrocarbon gas liquids, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources formed by organic matter over millions of years and include oil, coal and natural gas. The EIA defines the five energy consuming sectors within the United States as follows: • Industrial Sector: Includes facilities and equipment used for manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and construction. • Transportation Sector: Includes vehicles that transport people or goods, such as cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, trains, aircraft, boats, barges, and ships. • Residential Sector: Includes homes and apartments. • Commercial Sector: Includes offices, malls, stores, schools, hospitals, hotels, warehouses, restaurants, and places of worship and public assembly. • Electric Power Sector: Consumes primary energy to generate most of the electricity the other four sectors consume. 169 168 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 61 Energy sources are measured in different physical units: liquid fuels are measured in barrels or gallons, natural gas in cubic feet, coal in short tons, and electricity in kilowatts and kilowatt- hours. In the United States, British thermal units (Btu), a measure of heat energy, is commonly used for comparing different types of energy to each other. Project Energy Consumption The three (3) main types of energy expected to be consumed by the Project include electricity, natural gas and petroleum products in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel. Energy usage for the Project is calculated based on the Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering, Inc., 4-23-2019 (Appendix B). The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) is used to calculate energy usage from Project construction and operational activities. • Electricity Consumption The Project will use electricity for many different operational activities including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, electronics, mechanical equipment, electric vehicle charging, and parking lot lighting. Indirect electricity usage is also required to supply, distribute, and treat water and wastewater for the Project. Electricity will be provided through Southern California Edison. Temporary electricity usage for construction activities may include lighting, electric equipment and mobile office uses. CalEEMod does not calculate electricity usage during construction as electricity consumption during construction is short-term and relatively minor compared to the operational demand. Therefore, electricity usage during construction is not counted in this analysis. Table 6-1, Project Electricity Consumption, shows the Project’s estimated operational electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year) and millions of Btu per year. Table 6-1 Project Electricity Consumption Land Use/Activity Electricity Consumption1 (kWhr/yr.)2 (MBtu/yr.)2 General Light Industry 2,436,610 8,313.713 Parking Lot 117,757 401.787 Water Supply and Treatment 795,131 2,712.987 Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE)3 169.170 577.208 Total 3,519,688 12,005.695 1 Source: Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering, Inc., 4-23-2019 (Appendix B). 2 kWhr/yr. = Kilowatt Hours per Year; MBtu/yr. = Million British Thermal Units per Year. 3 Water supply and treatment includes indirect electricity for supply, treatment and distribution of water and wastewater. 4 EVSE electricity estimates based on U.S. Department of Energy Costs Associated with Non-Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment, November 2015, Appendix C, Electricity Consumption Examples. https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/evse_cost_report_2015.pdf 5 Assumes 15 charging spaces per CALGreen requirements, Section 5.106.5.3.3. 170 169 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 62 • Natural Gas Consumption The Project will use natural gas for building heating and cooling, cooking and kitchen appliances and water heating. Natural gas is not expected to be used during construction in any significant quantities and is not included in the overall calculation of the Project’s natural gas consumption. Table 6-2, Project Natural Gas Consumption, shows the Project’s estimated operational natural gas consumption in millions of Btu per year. Table 6-2 Project Propane Consumption Land Use/Activity Propane Consumption1 (MBtu/yr.)2 General Light Industry 7,799.550 Total 7,799.550 1 Source: Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering, Inc., 4- 23-2019 (Appendix B). 2 MBtu/yr = Million British Thermal Units per Year. • Petroleum Consumption The Project’s energy consumption from petroleum products is primarily associated with transportation related activities. This includes gasoline and diesel fuel used for auto and truck trips and off-road equipment during construction and operation. 1. Construction Construction of the Project is estimated last approximately 14 months and consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases. Construction activities will consume energy in the form of motor vehicle fuel (gasoline and diesel) for off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips. Vehicle trips include workers and vendors traveling to and from the job-site, as well as from truck trips associated with the hauling of approximately 33,500 cubic yards of soil to be imported during site grading. Table 6-3, Construction Off-Road Equipment Energy Consumption, shows the Project’s energy consumption for all off-road equipment during construction. For purposes of this analysis, all off-road equipment is assumed to run on diesel fuel. Table 6-4, Construction On-Road Trips Energy Consumption, shows the Project’s energy consumption from on- road vehicle trips during construction. 171 170 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 63 Table 6-3 Construction Off-Road Equipment Energy Consumption Phase1 Phase Duration (Days)1 Equipment1 Amount1 Hours/ Day1 Horspower (HP)1 Load Factor1 HP-hrs2 Fuel Consumption Rate3 (hp-hr/gal) Diesel Fuel Consumption (gal.) Diesel Fuel Consumption by Phase (gal.) MBtu4 Site Preparation 10 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 247 0.40 23,712.0 18.5 1,281.7 1,902.5 261.371 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37 11,484.8 620.8 Grading 30 Excavators 2 8 158 0.38 28,819.2 1,557.8 6,047.1 830.756 Graders 1 8 187 0.41 18,400.8 23,712.0 84,556.8 994.6 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.40 0.48 1,281.7 Scrapers 2 8 367 1,281.7 931.2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 17,227.2 Building Construction 240 Cranes 2 7 231 0.29 225,086.4 12,166.8 49,792.1 6,840.487 Forklifts 4 8 89 0.20 136,704.0 7,389.4 Generator Sets 2 8 84 0.74 238,694.4 12,902.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 7 97 0.37 241,180.8 13,036.8 Welders 2 8 46 0.45 79,488.0 4,296.6 Paving 20 Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 17,472.0 944.4 2,292.2 314.910 Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 15,206.4 822.0 Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 9,728.0 525.8 Architectural Coating 20 Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 4,492.8 242.9 242.9 33.364 Total Energy Requirements 60,276.8 8,280.887 Source: Energy Analysis (Appendix L) 1 Source: Scheu Business Center Air Quality and GHG Impact Study. (CalEEMod v.2016.3.2) 2 HP-hrs = Horsepower Hours. 3 Source: Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. 2017 Revisions. Table D-21. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/current.htm 4 Mbtu = Millions of Btu; assuming 1 gallon of diesel fuel = 137,381 Btu. 172 171 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 64 6-4 Construction On-Road Trips Energy Consumption Construction Phase1 Phase Duration (Days)1 Trips /Day1 Trip Length1 VMT/Phase Vehicle Class1 Vehicle Mix1 Average Fuel Economy (MPG)2 Gasoline Diesel Total MBtu3 Fuel Split2 Fuel Consumption by Class (gal.) Fuel Consumption by Phase (gal.) Fuel Split2 Fuel Consumption by class Fuel Consumption by Phase Worker Trips Site Preparation 10 18 14.7 2,646 LDA LDT1 LDT2 0.50 0.25 0.25 28.57 23.26 20.73 0.9926 0.9991 0.9986 45.96 28.41 31.87 106.24 0.0074 0.0009 0.0014 0.34 0.03 0.04 0.41 12.85 Grading 30 20 14.7 8,820 LDA LDT1 LDT2 0.50 0.25 0.25 28.57 23.26 20.73 0.9926 0.9991 0.9986 153.22 94.71 106.22 354.15 0.0074 0.0009 0.0014 1.14 0.09 0.15 1.38 42.84 Building Construction 240 242 14.7 853,776 LDA LDT1 LDT2 0.50 0.25 0.25 28.57 23.26 20.73 0.9926 0.9991 0.9986 14,831.26 9,168.18 10,281.97 34,281.41 0.0074 0.0009 0.0014 110.57 8.26 14.41 133.24 4,146.78 Paving 20 15 14.7 4,410 LDA LDT1 LDT2 0.50 0.25 0.25 28.57 23.26 20.73 0.9926 0.9991 0.9986 76.61 47.36 53.11 177.07 0.0074 0.0009 0.0014 0.57 0.04 0.07 0.69 21.42 Architectural Coating 20 48 14.7 14,112 LDA LDT1 LDT2 0.50 0.25 0.25 28.57 23.26 20.73 0.9926 0.9991 0.9986 245.14 151.54 169.95 566.63 0.0074 0.0009 0.0014 1.83 0.14 0.24 2.20 68.54 Sub-Total Worker Trips Energy Consumption Gasoline (gal.) 35,485.51 Diesel (gal.) 137.92 4,292.43 Vendor Trips Building Construction 240 94 6.9 155,664 MHDT HHDT 0.50 0.50 8.50 5.85 0.1403 0.0097 1,284.69 129.05 1,413.74 0.8597 0.9903 7,872.02 13,175.56 21,047.58 3,061.79 Hauling Trips Grading 30 4,188.00 20.0 2,512,800 HHDT 1.00 5.85 0.0097 4,166.52 4,166.52 0.9903 425,371.94 425,371.94 58,939.79 Total On-Road Construction Trips Energy Usage Gasoline (gal.) 41,065.77 Diesel (gal.) 446,557.44 66,294.02 1 Source: Scheu Business Center Air Quality and GHG Impact Study. (CalEEMod v.2016.3.2) 2 Source: EMFAC2014 Web Database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014/. (See Appendix B for more details.) 3 Mbtu = Millions of Btu; assuming 1 gallon of gasoline fuel = 120,429 Btu and 1 gallon of diesel fuel = 137,381 Btu 173 172 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 65 2. Operation The Project is expected to consume energy from the generation of operational auto and truck trips based on the land use mix described in the Scheu Business Center Update Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 9-18-2019 (Appendix H) and the Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering, Inc., 4-23-2019 (Appendix B). Vehicle trips are associated with workers, customers and vendors/non-workers (i.e. delivery, service and maintenance vehicles, etc.) traveling to and from the site. Table 6-5, Operational Trips Energy Consumption, shows the Project’s energy consumption for all operational trips generated by the Project on an annual basis. Table 6-5 Operational Trips Energy Consumption Vehicle Class1 Vehicle Mix1 Average Fuel Economy (MPG)2 Annual VMT1 Gasoline Diesel MBtu/yr3 Fuel Split2 Fuel Consumption (gal./yr) Fuel Split2 Fuel Consumption (gal./yr) LDA 54.17% 28.57 0.9926 76,603.10 0.0074 571.09 9,303.69 LDT1 3.90% 23.26 0.9991 6,815.70 0.0009 6.14 821.65 LDT2 17.86% 20.73 0.9986 35,019.81 0.0014 49.10 4,224.15 MDV 12.68% 15.42 0.9875 33,057.99 0.0125 418.46 4,038.63 LHD1 1.97% 14.08 0.6650 3,794.91 0.3350 1,911.72 719.65 LHD2 0.57% 14.35 0.5100 820.29 0.4900 788.13 207.06 MHD 1.71% 8.50 4,069,972 0.1403 1,146.74 0.8597 7,026.72 1,103.44 HHD 6.01% 5.85 0.0097 405.36 0.9903 41,383.86 5,734.17 OBUS 0.13% 7.25 0.4732 352.24 0.5268 392.14 96.29 UBUS 0.17% 4.86 0.3269 469.50 0.6731 966.72 189.35 MCY 0.62% 35.36 1.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 86.55 SBUS 0.08% 8.10 0.2133 88.21 0.7867 325.32 55.32 MH 0.12% 7.88 0.8345 501.27 0.1655 99.41 74.02 Total Operational Energy Usage From Transportation Gasoline (gal.) 159,793.81 Diesel (gal.) 53,938.81 26,653.98 1 Source: Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering, Inc., 4- 23-2019 (Appendix B). 2 Source: EMFAC2014 Web Database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014/. (See Appendix B of ECA for more details.) 3 MBtu/yr = Millions of Btu per year; assuming 1 gallon of gasoline fuel = 120,429 Btu and 1 gallon of diesel fuel = 137,381 Btu • Total Project Energy Consumption The Project’s total energy consumption is calculated in MBtu and shown in Table 6-6, Total Project Energy Consumption. Total Project energy consumption includes electricity, 174 173 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 66 natural gas and petroleum usage during construction and operation. Table 10-6 Total Project Energy Consumption Activity Energy Consumption (MBtu/yr)1 Construction2 74,574.90 Off-Road Equipment 8,280.89 On-Road Vehicle Trips 66,294.02 Operational 46,459.22 Electricity 12,005.70 Natural Gas 7,799.55 Petroleum 26,653.98 1 MBtu/yr = Millions of Btu per year 2 Assumes all construction activity will occur within one year time period. The Project will be required to comply with the mandatory requirements of California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and Green Building Standards (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11). California’s building energy efficiency standards are some of the strictest in the nation and the Project’s compliance with California’s building code will ensure that wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy is minimized. The building standards code is designed to reduce the amount of energy needed to heat or cool a building, reduce energy usage for lighting and appliances and promote usage of energy from renewable sources. In addition, the Project will be required to comply with the Project design features listed in the Project Description of this Initial Study. The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. Any impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X The project will purchase electricity through Southern California Edison which is subject to the requirements of California Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). SB 100 is the most stringent and current energy legislation in California; requiring that renewable energy resources and zero- carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. 175 174 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 67 The Project will further comply with the mandatory requirements of California’s Green Building and Building Energy Efficiency standards that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Any impacts would be less than significant. 176 175 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 68 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Source(s): Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Chapter 8, Public Health and Safety Element, Figure PS-2 Fault Hazards, (p. PS-13), adopted May 19, 2010; Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Volume I SCH No. 2000061027 (City’s General Plan EIR), Section 4.7, Geology and Soils; Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Industrial/Warehouse Building, NEC Archibald Avenue & Seventh Street, prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 30, 2013 (Geo Investigation, Appendix E1); and Geotechnical Update (Letter) – Proposed Industrial/Warehouse Building, NEC Archibald Avenue & Seventh Street, prepared by Sladden Engineering, September 10, 2018 (Geo Update, Appendix E2). Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the Geo Investigation, unless otherwise noted. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a.i) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are no faults geologically mapped within or projecting toward the Project site. The Project site is not within the Rancho Cucamonga Special Study Zone, which is located along the Red Hill Fault, situated approximately one (1.0) mile northwest of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a.ii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? X 177 176 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 69 Intense ground shaking at the Project site could occur during an earthquake event on the Cucamonga or Red Hill Fault. In addition, all development within the greater City of Rancho Cucamonga is susceptible to potential ground shaking due to the relative proximity to two of California’s most active faults: the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. Ground-shaking hazards associated with earthquake faults in the City, major faults in the region, and other nearby faults could pose hazards to future development at the Project site. The Red Hill Fault Zone, which extends northeast by southwest through the central portion of the City, is located approximately one (1) mile northwest of the Project site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone, which extends east/west along the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in the City’s sphere-of-influence (SOI), is approximately 5½ miles north of the Project site. These faults are reportedly both capable of producing earthquakes with a magnitude ranging from 6.0 – 7.0. In addition, the San Jacinto fault, with a 6.7 maximum magnitude event rating is located 10.8 miles northeast of the Project site and the San Andreas fault, with a maximum magnitude event rating of 7.5, is located approximately 14.9 miles northeast of the Project site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. According to the Geo Investigation (p. 3), “we consider the most significant geologic hazard to the Project to be the potential for moderate to strong seismic shaking that is likely to occur during the design life of the project.” Furthermore, per the Geo Investigation (p. 4), the closest known active faults that were generated in part using the EQFAULT computer programs, as modified using the fault parameters from The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, are shown below in Table 7-1, Closest Known Active Faults. Table 7-1 Closest Known Active Faults1 Fault Name Distance from Project Site Maximum Event Kilometers Miles Red Hill2 1.6 1.0 6.5 Cucamonga 8.7 5.4 6.9 San Jose 9.5 5.9 6.4 Sierra Madre 14.2 8.8 6.7 Chino – Central Ave. (Elsinore) 15.2 9.4 6.7 San Jacinto – San Bernardino 17.4 10.8 6.7 San Andreas – San Bernardino 24.0 14.9 7.5 San Andreas – Southern 24.0 14.9 7.2 San Andreas – Mohave 25.3 15.7 7.4 \ 1 Table 7-1 does not identify the probability of reactivation or the on-site effects from earthquakes occurring on any of the other faults in the region. 2 Red Hill Fault info and maximum event figure per the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. The Project site has been subjected to past ground shaking by faults that traverse through the region. Strong seismic shaking from nearby active faults is expected to produce high ground accelerations during the design life of the Project. As set forth in the Geo Investigation (p. 5), a probabilistic approach was employed to the estimate the peak ground acceleration (amax) that could be experienced at the site. Based on the USGS Probabilistic Hazard Curves, the site could be subjected to ground accelerations on the order of 0.52g; 178 177 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 70 and the peak ground acceleration at the site is judged to have a 475 year return period and a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years. The Project will be required to adhere to the California Building Code and the recommendations related to seismic ground shaking contained in the Geo Investigation (Standard Condition SC-GEO-1 and Standard Condition SC-GEO-2). Adherence to these standard conditions is required for every project and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. SC-GEO-1 In accordance with City’s Building Regulations, as contained in Title 15, Buildings and Construction of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which includes adoption of the 2007 California Building Code (CBC), all construction shall comply with the CBC and the amendments and exemptions to the CBC that the City has adopted. This Title requires site-specific investigation and establishes construction standards and inspection procedures to ensure that development does not pose a threat to public safety. SC-GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit, the Project applicant shall submit plans that demonstrate compliance with the geotechnical conclusions and recommendations contained in the Geo Investigation as it pertains to: • Earthwork and Grading; • Foundations: Conventional Shallow Spread Footings; • Slabs-On-Grade; • Preliminary Pavement Design; • Soluble Sulfates; • Utility Trench Backfill; • Exterior Concrete Flatwork; and • Drainage. With adherence to Standard Condition SC-GEO-1 and Standard Condition SC-GEO-2, any exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, would be reduced to less than significant level. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a.iii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X As set forth in the Geo Investigation (p. 5-6), liquefaction is the process in which loose, saturated granular soil loses strength as a result of cyclic loading. The strength loss is a result of a decrease in granular sand volume and a positive increase in pore pressures. Generally, liquefaction can occur if all of the following conditions apply: liquefaction- susceptible soil, groundwater within a depth of 50 feet or less, and strong seismic shaking. 179 178 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 71 Based on the depth to ground water in the site vicinity (>100 ft.), risks associated with liquefaction are considered negligible. Sladden Engineering performed the on-site soil exploration of the Project site on April 22, 2013 by drilling ten (10) borings to depths varying from approximately 4 to 51 feet below ground surface (bgs) in order to characterize the subsurface soil conditions. Figure 7-1, Regional Geologic Map, depicts the Project site and the surrounding geologic units; and Figure 7-2, Borehole Location Aerial Photograph, shows locations of the ten (10) borings conducted on the Project site. According to the Geo Investigation, (p. 3), the Project site has been mapped by Morton and Miller to be immediately underlain by Quaternary-age alluvial fan deposits (Qyf4). During the field investigation, artificial fill/disturbed soil and native alluvial materials were encountered to the maximum explored depth of approximately 51.5 feet bgs. Artificial fill soil was encountered near the surface within each of the bores. The artificial fill soil was generally less than 2 to 3 feet in depth within the bores. The native soil consists primarily of silty sand (SM) and sand (SP-SW) with scattered gravels and cobbles. Groundwater was not encountered within any of the ten (10) boreholes conducted onsite to a depth of 51.5 feet. Based upon the bores, the Geo Investigation states that it is their opinion that groundwater is at a sufficient depth as not to be a factor during construction of the proposed structure. However, following periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall, perched groundwater may be encountered. Seismic settlement is often caused when loose granular soil densifies during seismic shaking, potentially resulting in damage to overlying structures and improvements. Based on the analysis set forth in the Geo Investigation (p. 5), the potential for differential settlements is expected to be negligible. It is noted, however, that because of the somewhat soft and compressible condition of the near surface soil, remedial grading including over-excavation and re-compaction is recommended for the proposed building and foundation areas. Remedial grading within the proposed building areas is recommended to include over-excavation and/or re-compaction of the artificial fill soil and the primary foundation bearing soil. Specific recommendations for site preparation are presented in the Earthwork and Grading section of the Geo Investigation. The Project will be required to adhere to the California Building Code and the recommendations related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction contained in the Geo Investigation (Standard Condition SC-GEO-1 and Standard Condition SC- GEO-2). Adherence to these standard conditions is required for every project and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. With adherence to Standard Condition SC-GEO-1 and Standard Condition SC-GEO-2, any potential impacts to the Project from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, will be reduced to less than significant level. 180 179 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 72 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a.iv) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides? X As set forth in the Geo Investigation, the Project site is relatively level with minimal surface gradients. According to the USGS 7.5' Guasti Quadrangle map (1981), the site is at an approximate elevation of 1,095 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The site is situated on relatively level ground and is not immediately adjacent to any slopes or hillsides that could be potentially susceptible to slope instability. No signs of slope instability in the form of landslides, rock falls, earthflows or slumps were observed at or near the Project site. Risks associated with slope instability is considered "negligible". No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Site grading will create the potential for the Project to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Based on the relatively level nature of the site, it appears that grading will consist of minor cuts and fills in order to achieve the final pad elevations and to provide adequate gradients for site drainage. This does not include remedial grading consisting of the removal and re- compaction of primary foundation bearing soil within the building areas. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within a designated Soil Erosion Control Area as set forth in Exhibit 4.7-4 of the General Plan EIR. 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 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 reduction measures shall be implemented: 1) The Project site shall be treated with water or other 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 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. 181 180 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 73 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. Lastly, water erosion will be prevented through the City’s standard, mandated, erosion control practices required pursuant to the CBC, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, or sandbags. Reference Standard Condition SC-GEO-1. Adherence to these standard conditions is required for every project and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, based on the required compliance with the fugitive dust reduction measures and standard conditions, impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X The Project site is relatively level and generally at grade with adjacent streets and surrounding properties with an elevation of approximately 1,095 AMSL. As discussed previously, according to the Geo Investigation, the Project site is underlain by Quaternary- age alluvial fan deposits (Qyf4), and onsite borings revealed the presence of native alluvial materials and artificial fill/disturbed soil. The artificial fill/disturbed soil was present in all ten (10) of the borings located near the surface with depths generally less than two to three feet. The native soils consist primarily of silty sand (SM) and sand (SP-SW) with scattered gravels and cobbles. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings to a depth of 51.5 feet while a previous study, indicates groundwater depth greater than 100 feet in the Project site vicinity. The Project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the Project. According to the Geo Investigation (p. 5), while the potential for moderate to strong seismic shaking is likely to occur at the Project site during the design life of the Project, given the depth of the ground water in the vicinity of the subject (>100’) the risks associated with liquefaction are considered negligible. Furthermore, given the topography of the site and the surrounding vicinity, there are no risks associated with onsite or offsite landslides. Seismic settlement is often caused when loose granular soil densifies during seismic shaking, potentially resulting in damage to overlying structures and improvements. Based 182 181 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 74 on the analysis set forth in the Geo Investigation (p. 5), the potential for differential settlements is expected to be negligible. It is noted, however, that because of the somewhat soft and compressible condition of the near surface soil, remedial grading including over-excavation and re-compaction is recommended for the proposed building and foundation areas. Remedial grading within the proposed building areas is recommended to include over-excavation and/or re-compaction of the artificial fill soil and the primary foundation bearing soil. Specific recommendations for site preparation are presented in the Earthwork and Grading section of the Geo Investigation. Standard Condition SC-GEO-1 and Standard Condition SC-GEO-2, require compliance with California Building Code (CBC) requirements as well as the recommendations contained within the Geo Investigation. CBC requirements pertaining to new development and construction will minimize the potential for structural failure or loss of life during earthquakes by ensuring that structures are constructed pursuant to applicable seismic design criteria for the region. Compliance with Standard Condition SC-GEO-1 and Standard Condition SC-GEO-2 is applicable to all development; therefore, it is not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Therefore, the Project being not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Any impacts v be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? X According to the Geo Investigation (p. 6), the Project site has a “very low” expansion potential. Expansion Index testing of select samples was performed in order to evaluate the expansive potential of the materials underlying the Project site. Based on the results of the laboratory testing (EI = 1), the materials present near the ground surface are considered to have a "very low" expansion potential. Accordingly, risk of structural damage caused by volumetric changes in the subgrade soil should be minimal. However, the surface soil should be tested subsequent to grading and final foundation and slab design should be based upon post- grading expansion test results. Specific expansive soil design criteria can be provided subsequent to building pad grading. The Project will be required to adherence to the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations related to expansive soils contained in the Geo Investigation (SC-GEO-1 and SC-GEO-2). Adherence to these standard conditions is required for every project and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. 183 182 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 75 Therefore, the Project would not create substantial risks to life or property due to expansive soils. Any impacts would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X No portion of the Project proposes the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. The Project will tie into existing sanitary sewer facilities in 7th Street currently terminating approximately 200’ east of Archibald Avenue and which can be extended east and on site to service all 4 parcels/buildings within the Project. streets. Therefore, whether or not the Project has soils incapable of adequately supporting use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is not relevant. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X Geographically, the Project site is situated on an alluvial fan emanating from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. Topographically, the Project site is flat and devoid of significant relief. Elevations range from a maximum of 1,095 feet AMSL along the northern Project boundary to a minimum of approximately 1,085 feet along the southern Project boundary. The Project site is largely devoid of vegetation due to weed abatement although a sparse cover of exotic weeds and forbes exists. There are no standing structures within the Project boundaries although numerous piles of soil have been placed along the southern Project boundary. Records Research All available literature considered pertinent to the Project site, including previously recorded lists of fossils and paleontological fossil localities recorded for the general Project site vicinity, was reviewed. The purpose of the literature search was to determine: (1) pertinent geologic and paleontologic site information, and (2) the paleontologic sensitivity of identified and/or anticipated geologic units underlying the Project site. A records search for the Project conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) shows no fossil localities mapped within the boundaries of the Project study area. LACM’s closest fossil vertebrate locality in the older Quaternary deposits is LACM 7811, which is located to the south of the Project study area and west of Mira Loma along Sumner Avenue. A fossil specimen of whipsnake, Masticophisis was recovered at that site. 184 183 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 76 Located further to the south, the next closest locality is LACM 1207 which yielded a fossil specimen of deer, Odocoileus. A review of other unpublished documents relating to regional and/or detailed geologic studies was also conducted. These were supplemented with an examination of the regional geologic map delineating the geology of the rock formations underlying the Project site. No additional recorded fossil localities, fossil lists, published or unpublished literature within the boundaries of the Project site were discovered during the additional research. The Project study area is underlain by sediments that have been mapped as Quaternary Alluvium. The Quaternary Alluvium is variously mapped as Younger (Recent) and Older Quaternary Alluvium. The Older Quaternary Alluvium and Recent Alluvium are all deposited in the same alluvial fan environment and consist of unconsolidated to slightly consolidated silt, sand, and coarse- grained sand to bouldery alluvial-fan deposits having slightly to moderately dissected surfaces. As a result of the low rates of sedimentation in broad flat valleys the sediments in areas mapped as Quaternary Alluvium are typically as old as Pleistocene in age. The Older Alluvium and some younger alluvium are known to contain significant fossil localities. The Quaternary Alluvium in this area is considered to be of low paleontologic sensitivity at the surface. This sensitivity increases to moderate to high with depth. Many to most geologic maps indicate the broad valley areas as Quaternary Alluvium (Holocene to latest Pleistocene) when in fact these surfaces were largely formed sometime in the Pleistocene and were probably formed before the latest Pleistocene. The sediments in the active channels are Holocene while the surrounded surfaces are older. Many of these channels are incised into the surface indicating a lowering of base level, probably related to lowering of sea level. The deeper alluvium in these channels often contains a Pleistocene vertebrate fauna. Field Reconnaissance A pedestrian survey of the study area was conducted on September 8, 2018. The field survey was conducted to investigate and make visual observations of each geologic unit present on the surface of the site. No paleontologic resources were encountered during the field reconnaissance. Conclusions and Recommendations No published fossil localities are known to exist on the Project site. No fossil remains were encountered on the site during the field reconnaissance. The older alluvium was deposited by streams flowing across the study area during the Pleistocene Epoch. Fossils of land animals are known from the surrounding region. According to the Geo Investigation, artificial fill soil was present to a depth of 3 feet with native alluvium below. The Older Quaternary Alluvium Deposits are considered to have a moderate to high potential for the discovery of significant fossils. The Younger (Recent) Quaternary Alluvium Deposits are considered to have a low potential for the discovery of significant fossils. Since paleontological resources are subsurficial, they may be encountered during grading 185 184 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 77 activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1, and MM-GEO-2 shall be implemented. MM-GEO-1 Paleontological Monitoring. The monitoring shall be conducted part- time during over-excavation of the building pads below 5-feet in the Older Quaternary Alluvium, increasing to full-time during excavation of the deeper utilities (e.g. deeper removals, storm drain and sewers) in the Older Quaternary Alluvium. Supervision by a Project paleontologist will be maintained during paleontologic grading observations when grading in the on-site geologic units. In the event that fossils are exposed, the Project paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of exposure to facilitate evaluation, and (if identified as potentially significant) to salvage significant fossils. MM-GEO-2 Disposition of Fossils. All fossils collected shall be prepared and identified by a qualified paleontologist. Excavated significant fossil finds shall be offered to the City or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. These actions, as well as, final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to City/County guidelines and regulations. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1, and MM-GEO-2, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 186 185 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 78 GEOLOGY AND SOILS FIGURES 187 186 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 79 Figure 7-1 Regional Geologic Map 188 187 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 80 Figure 7-2 Borehole Location Aerial Photograph 189 188 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 81 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Source(s): Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-23-2019 (AQ/GHG Analysis, Appendix B). Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the AQ/GHG Analysis, unless otherwise noted. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for the Project were analyzed in the AQ/GHG Analysis to determine if the Project could have an impact related to GHG emissions. These impacts are analyzed on a cumulative basis, utilizing Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e), measured in metric tons (MT) or, MTCO2e. They are analyzed for both the construction and operational phases of the Project. The SCAQMD Tier 3 significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e emission threshold was utilized. The SCAQMD has published interim significance thresholds for greenhouse gases where the AQMD is the lead agency, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. This document describes a five-tiered draft GHG threshold which includes a 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year significance threshold for industrial projects. Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose. The City does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP). Construction Emissions Construction activities are short-term and will cease to have any GHG emissions upon completion. In contrast, operational emissions are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this difference, SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year operational lifetime. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions to generate a precise project-based GHG inventory. Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site construction activity using CalEEMod. Table 8-1, Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions, shows the construction greenhouse gas emissions, including equipment and worker vehicle emissions for all phases of construction. 190 189 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 82 Table 8-1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Activity Emissions (MTC02e)1 On-site Off-site Total Site Preparation 17.52 0.90 18.42 Grading 85.63 163.25 248.88 Building Construction 475.96 573.85 1,049.81 Paving 20.64 1.46 22.10 Architectural Coating 2.56 4.66 7.22 Total 602.31 744.12 1,346.43 Averaged over 30 years2 20.08 24.80 44.88 1 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbon). 2 The emissions are averaged over 30 years and added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations. Greenhouse gas emissions include equipment and worker vehicle emissions for the Project would be 1,346.43 MTCO2e. Amortized over a 30-year operational lifetime, this equates to approximately 44.88 MTCO2e per year. Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the Project would include GHG emissions from the following sources: • Mobile sources (transportation); • Energy; • Water use and treatment; • Waste disposal; and • Area sources. Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the Project. Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on-site. Water use and treatment includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. Waste disposal includes the GHG emissions generated from the processing of waste from the Project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. 191 190 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 83 Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site operational activity using CalEEMod. Greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, area sources and energy sources are shown in Table 8-2, Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions, below. Table 8-2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)1 Mobile Source 1,941.03 Energy Source 1,235.47 Area Source 0.02 Water 326.42 Waste 149.70 Carbon Sequestration (New Trees) -111.86 Construction (30year average) 44.88 Total Annual Emissions 3,585.66 SCAQMD Tier 3 Screening Threshold2 10,000 Exceed Tier 3 Threshold? No 1 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbon). 2 Per South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008. The Project’s GHG emissions were compared to the SCAQMD’s Tier 3 approach, which limits GHG emissions to 10,000 MTCO2e for industrial projects. As shown in Table 8-2, Project GHG emissions are estimated to be 3,585.66 MTCO2e, which is well below 10,000 MTCO2e. The Project will comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 1 of the California Building Standards Code and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. These are standard conditions and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Based on the thresholds set by the State of California and the SCAQMD, the Project’s GHG emissions would not result, either directly or indirectly, in a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, by complying with the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for GHG, the Project would not conflict with the adopted State plans, policies and regulation for reducing GHG. Project impacts would be less than significant. 192 191 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 84 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X The Project is required to comply with the goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan (RCSCAP) for reducing GHG emissions. Table 8-3, Project Compliance with Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan, demonstrates Project compliance with the goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions. Table 8-3 Project Compliance with Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Communities Action Plan Policy Project Compliance TM Policy 1: Promote Active Transportation Choices. • The Project will include pedestrian sidewalks and access to the adjacent land uses and transit/circulation network. • The Project will provide bicycle parking/bicycle racks, per City of Rancho Cucamonga and State of California Building Code requirements. • The Project is located along Archibald Avenue which provides Class II bike lanes for access to the site. TM Policy 2: Utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies citywide. • The Project will provide designated parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles to promote ride-sharing programs that reduce the pollutants generated by the vehicle use. • The Project will provide bicycle parking/bicycle racks, per City of Rancho Cucamonga and State of California Building Code requirements. TM Policy 3: Ensure safe and convenient transit options are available to all residents. • The Project is located along the Archibald Avenue Secondary Transit Corridor (Regional Service). • The Project will participate in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program which supports the development and maintenance of transit amenities, bus stops, shade/weather protection, seats, and bus shelters, and encourages further transit use in the City. TM Policy 4: Increase the use of alternative fuels and electric vehicles. • The Project will provide charging and fueling station for alternative fuel vehicles. • The Project will provide designated clean air vehicle parking spaces. 193 192 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 85 • The Project will provide solar ready infrastructure. TM Policy 4: Facilitate efficient movement of vehicles throughout the City. • The Project will participate in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program which is used for the development and maintenance of roadways and transportation infrastructure throughout the City. LU Policy 1: Support development and redevelopment of land use patterns that promote clean, green, and healthy living. • The Project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the site. • The Project will implement pedestrian and bicycle connections to the local transportation network. • The Project will incorporate smart growth practices which limits the impacts on natural resources, energy, air and water quality. LU Policy 2: Provide for the preservation of parks, open space, and development. • The Project will contribute towards the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Impact Fee (DIF) program which helps in protecting and developing sensitive land resources, parks, open spaces and infrastructure throughout the city. EE Policy 1: Reduce energy demand by improved efficiency and building design. • The Project will promote green practices in conserving energy by implementing energy- efficient design for heating, cooling, and lighting. • The Project will comply the State of California Title 24 Building Standards (CalGreen) requirements. • The Project design will incorporate measures that reduce energy use through solar orientation by taking advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping, and sunscreens. EE Policy 2: Increase the amount of renewable energy use in Rancho Cucamonga. • The Project will include solar ready infrastructure. GB Policy 1: Facilitate the use of green building practices. • The Project will meet the CalGreen building code requirements. • The Project will comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga green building principles. WW Policy 1: Support efforts to reduce potable water usage per capita in Rancho Cucamonga. • The Project will incorporate low-flow fixtures and faucets to reduce water usage. • The Project will participate in the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) water conservation and recycling program. WW Policy 2: Continue to expand water conservation efforts Citywide. • The Project will install drought tolerant, native landscapes and minimize the amount of turf and sod installed. • The Project will install water efficient irrigation and provide efficient site maintenance. • The Project will participate in the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) water conservation and recycling program. WR Policy 1: Expand programs to decrease • The Project will comply with the City of Rancho 194 193 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 86 waste sent to landfills. Cucamonga Environmental Programs regarding waste management. WR Policy 2: Expand opportunities to recycle organic materials. • The Project will work with City of Rancho Cucamonga and Burrtec Waste Industries to prepare a construction waste management plan. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the applicable plans, policies and regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG gases. Any impacts would be less than significant. 195 194 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 87 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Source(s): City General Plan EIR, Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Cucamonga School District website; Chaffey Joint Union High School District website; GEOTRACKER website; and the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor website. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X The Project could result in a significant hazard to the public if the project includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is zoned General Industrial and the Project proposes the construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area. The Project site is surrounded by general industrial land use to the north, south, east and west; with a pocket of seasoned low density residential (2-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) to the southwest. The Project does not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities (no housing is proposed). The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with general industrial uses that require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications. A hazardous material, as defined in the Section 25501 of the California Health and Safety Code, is “any material that, due to quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant potential hazard to public health and safety or to the environment, if released into the workplace or the environment.” The Project operation (warehouse) does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances as part of the proposed light industrial warehouse use. The Project is designed as a multi-tenant warehouse distribution facility appealing to small distributors of finished goods, industrial supplies, and other businesses similar in nature; these types of tenants typically do not use or store hazardous materials. Furthermore, according to the owner, each tenant must sign a 196 195 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 88 standard American Industrial Real Estate Association (AIR) Lease which prohibits the usage and/or storage of any materials that are considered “hazardous”. The Lease also provides detailed paragraphs for Lessor Termination Option, Lessee Remediation, and Lessee’s Compliance with Applicable Requirements. Property inspections are performed weekly. Additionally, each tenant will be required to supply a Hazardous Materials information sheet to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department as part of the tenant improvement permit and occupancy process and the Fire Department’s annual inspection process. Common use of hazardous materials associated with small business operations, and maintenance activities like paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, among other items, in limited quantities may be present in association with operations conducted at the Project site. However, no underground fuel or petroleum storage is proposed for the Project site, and as set forth above, the Project operation does not propose significant use, transport, or disposal of hazardous substances as a part of the light industrial warehouse use. During construction, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This would include fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, etc. Routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up, etc. would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Rough grading of the Project site will consist of approximately 2,800 cubic yards net cut and 36,300 cubic yards net fill, resulting in approximately 33,500 cubic yards of import (excluding subexcavation quantities). The imported fill material will be coming from within a 5-mile radius of the Project site. For air emissions modeling purposes a haul distance of 20 miles is assumed. Dirt is assumed to be hauled in heavy-heavy duty trucks (GWR>26,000lbs) and the total number of trips required for import would be 4,188 trips. The fill material will be clean (not containing contaminated soil), and the export site will have all the requisite environmental clearances. It is anticipated that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the Project can reduce such hazards to a less than significant level through best management practices (BMPs) incorporated into the SWPPP design. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department would place conditions of approval on the Project, as they pertain to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The requirement for a SWPPP is a standard condition for the County of San Bernardino and is not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. With the inclusion of this standard condition, any impacts from implementation of the Project construction related to significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, are considered less than significant. With regard to Project operation, the proposed light industrial warehouse use would not be expected to transport, use, store, or dispose of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Widely used hazardous materials common at light industrial warehouse facilities include cleaners and pesticides, among other items. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as commercial hazardous waste that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. Regular operation and cleaning of the warehouse facilities 197 196 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 89 would not result in significant impacts involving use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes and substances. Use of common commercial hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community and impacts associated with the routine transport and use of these aforementioned hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant. Hazardous materials must be stored in designated areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment. California Building Code requirements prescribe safe accommodations for materials that present a moderate explosion hazard, high fire or physical hazard, or health hazards. Hazardous materials regulations are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. Based on the various light industrial warehouse uses that would be a part of the Project combined with the state and local regulatory codes in place, the Project would not cause a threat to public safety during project construction or operation. Therefore, because the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials pertaining to the Project would be relatively minor and subject to extensive regulatory oversight, the impact is considered less than significant. Use of common small business hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community. Impacts associated with the routine transport and use of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X Please refer to Section 9.a, above. The Project site’s proposed light industrial warehouse development plan does not include an above ground or below ground fuel / petroleum, or petroleum related products storage or transport component. The potential for a significant release of hazardous materials is not applicable. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and impacts would be less than significant. 198 197 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 90 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X The Project site is located within the Cucamonga School District boundary (Grade: K-8) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District boundary (Grade: 9-12). In addition, residents of Rancho Cucamonga are served by various private Charter and religious education providers. The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located in an industrial neighborhood surrounded by existing development, there are no proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the Project. The closest existing schools to the Project site, listed below by proximity, are: • Springs Charter School – Rancho Cucamonga Personalized Learning Center (Grade: K- 12) is located at 8968 Archibald Avenue approximately one-tenth (0.1) of a mile northwest of the Project site; • Cucamonga School District’s - Rancho Cucamonga Middle School is located at 10022 Feron Boulevard approximately one-quarter (±¼) mile northeast of Project site; • Southwestern Vocational College is located in a light industrial business park at 9852 Crescent Center Drive approximately one-half (±½) mile south of the Project site; • Cucamonga School District’s - Cucamonga Elementary School is located at 8677 Archibald Avenue approximately one-half (±½) mile north of Project site; • American Christian Military Academy of Excellence is located in the Abundant Living Business Park at 9229 Utica, #130 approximately one (±1) mile east/southeast of the Project site; • Chaffey Joint Union High School District’s – Rancho Cucamonga High School is located at 11801 Lark Drive approximately 3½ miles northeast of the Project site. Based on the above, it is evident that there are two existing schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site, namely the Springs Charter School, and the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School. The City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2010 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) acknowledges that “while most schools are or would be located near residential areas where hazardous materials use would be limited, future development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update may be located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.” The GPEIR further states: “Developments that emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials may pose hazards to nearby school children in the event of an accidental release or spill.” 199 198 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 91 It is noted, the General Plan land use designation for the Project site is General Industrial, and the Project site is zoned General Industrial. The General Plan and Zoning for the Project site are consistent. It is further noted that the Project site’s proposed light industrial warehouse use is in compliance with permitted land uses set forth under the existing General Plan and Zoning land use regulations. The Project is not requesting a general plan amendment (GPA) or a change of zone (CZ). Lastly, as anticipated and set forth in the GPEIR, with respect to existing and proposed land use development within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school “compliance with existing hazardous material regulations would prevent undue hazards.” These include: • Hazardous Material Transportation Act (SC 4.8-1), • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (4.8-2), • California Hazardous Waste Control Act (SC 4.8-3), • Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) (SC 4.8-4), and • California Accidental Release Prevention Program (SC 4.8-5). Therefore, based on the above, impacts related to the exposure of school-aged children to hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or wastes would be less than significant assuming compliance with applicable standard conditions. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X The Project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses. Based upon review of the Cortese List, the Project site is not: • Listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); • Listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); • Listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB; • Currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB; or • Developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC. Reference Figure 9-1, Geotracker and Figure 9-2, Envirostor. 200 199 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 92 No impacts will occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? X The Project site is located in an area which is governed by an airport master plan. The closest airport is the LA/Ontario International Airport located approximately 1.8 miles to the south of the Project site. The Project site is located in the Airport Influence Area of the LA/Ontario International Airport. The Airport influence area includes the area in which current or future airport- related safety, noise, airspace protection, or overflight factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. With respect to the Project site, it is not located within a Safety Zone (Zone 1 through Zone 5) or a Noise Impact Zone (outside of 60-65 dB CNEL contour); it is, however, located within the Airspace Protection Zone and the Overflight Notification Zone. • Based on a review of the Compatibility Policy Map: Airspace Protection Zones, the Project site is bisected by two building height restriction zones. The south portion of the Project site is shown as being located in the 70’ to 100’ above ground level (AGL) zone, while the north portion is shown as being located in the 100’ to 150’ AGL zone. Given the proposed concrete tilt-up industrial warehouse use, the height restrictions will have no material effect on the Project. • Based on a review of the Compatibility Policy Map: Overflight Notification Zones, the Project site is located in the Real Estate Transaction Disclosure Policy Area. The Real Estate Transaction Disclosure policy area applies within the entire Airport Influence Area (AIA) including areas requiring avigation Easement Dedication and Recorded Overflight Notification. Given the proposed use of the Project site, the policy will have a less than significant impact on the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. No impacts would occur. 201 200 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 93 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X The City has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project proposes the on-site construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area, plus associated parking and site improvements. Offsite improvements include half-width street improvements along 7th Street, the extension of storm drains in 7th Street and utility (water and sewer) connections. A limited potential exists to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction, primarily along 7th Street. Control of access will ensure emergency access to the site and Project area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP). The TCP is designed to mitigate any construction circulation impacts. Following construction, emergency access to the Project site and area will remain as was prior to the Project. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere, with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. According to the Wildland Fire Background Report prepared for the City’s 2010 General Plan Update, wildland fires pose a major risk to mountainous and hillside Southern California communities. A wildfire that consumes hundreds to thousands of acres of vegetated property can overwhelm local emergency response resources. Therefore, 202 201 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 94 planning, preparedness, and education are required to reduce the potential for fire hazards and to limit the devastation caused by fires. The northern portions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its 11-square mile sphere-of- influence (SOI) at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest are susceptible to these wildland hazardous fire conditions given the hilly terrain and dried vegetation. The Project site and surrounding vicinity in the southern portion of the City is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is served by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). The closest station to the Project site is the San Bernardino Road Fire Station 172, located at 9612 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. This station is located approximately 1¼ mile north of the Project site. Fire Station 172 is staffed with a full-time, 24-hour constant staffing crew of a captain paramedic, engineer, and firefighter paramedic. They respond on a Type I engine and are capable of providing the full range of fire suppression, rescue, and advanced life support services. The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, 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. No impacts would occur. 203 202 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 95 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FIGURES 204 203 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 96 Figure 9-1 GEOTRACKER SITE NAME GLOBAL ID FAC ID SITE_TYPE STATUS ADDRESS Aqua Blue Car Wash FA0003723 8777 Haven Ave Arco 42487 (WRR 6188) FA0008071 9280 Haven Ave Cucamonga Sch Dist FA0005969 8776 Archibald Ave Cumberland Swan T0607100230 Lust Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed 9817 7th St Fasson - Avery Dennison T0607100288 Lust Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed 9292 9th St Frito Lay North America, Inc. FA0005619 9535 Archibald Ave General Dynamics Facility T0607199035 Cleanup Program Site Completed - Case Closed 10900 4th St Bldg#600 Laird Construction Company T0607100587 Lust Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed 9460 Lucas Ranch Rd Mizkan America, Inc. FA0004927 10037 E 8th St Mobil #18 -AJ6 T0607101726 Lust Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed 8477 Archibald Ave Pneu-Draulies T0607100092 Lust Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed 8575 Helms Ave Rancho Car Wash FA0001118 10075 Arrow Rte Unocal #5281 T0607100058 Lust Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed 705 N Archibald Ave Yellow Jacket Drilling FA0015682 9460 Lucas Ranch Rd Source: GEOTRACKER http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov 205 204 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 97 Figure 9-1 ENVIROSTOR Source: EnviroStor http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov 206 205 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 98 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Source(s): Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12 Floodplain Management Regulations; Chapter 19.20 Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control (adopted to comply with the CWA, the California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the City’s NPDES permit); City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR, Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Element; Exhibit 4.9-3 Flood Hazard Zones; Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-23- 2019 (Appendix B); Preliminary Drainage Study Scheu Industrial Park, prepared by Encompass Associates, Inc., March 22, 2018 (Drainage Study, Appendix F); and Cucamonga Valley Water District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, (CVWD 2015 UWMP). SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? X A project normally would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit or Water Quality Control Plan for a receiving water body. For the purpose of this specific issue, a significant impact could occur if the Project would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of the agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into storm water drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the Project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce potential post-construction water quality impacts. Construction Impacts Three general sources of potential short-term, construction-related storm water pollution associated with the Project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth- moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. 207 206 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 99 Operational Impacts Proposed construction of the Project (four concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area, with associated utility, parking, loading, and flatwork improvements) will increase impervious areas by replacing the vacant property with associated paving and rooftops. Landscaping is proposed as part of Project design in the form of landscaped planters containing a variety of drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground covers. The Project proponent has submitted a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for review and approval. The WQMP identifies post-construction BMPs in addressing increases in impervious surfaces, methods to decrease incremental increases in off-site storm water flows, and methods for decreasing pollutant loading in off-site discharges as required by the applicable NPDES requirements. This standard condition is applicable to all development; therefore, they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Any impacts from implementation of the Project, such that the Project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality, would be considered less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? X The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water to the Project site. CVWD’s potable water supply comes from two primary sources: local groundwater and imported water. CVWD manages its supply and demand with careful analysis regarding customer need and population estimates to ensure there will be an adequate supply of clean, reliable water into the future. CVWD, like most other agencies, creates an Urban Water Master Plan every five years that helps guide CVWD in their operations and water supply investments. CVWD has a diverse water supply portfolio that helps decrease dependence on imported water. Finding new sources of water is critical to ensuring water supply reliability CVWD’s customers. CVWD has been building a network of wells to take advantage of local groundwater supplies. This helps to ensure reliability at a reasonable cost. The District's diversified supply ensures a reliable water supply during times of drought, regulatory constraints and other emergencies. CVWD maintains 34 reservoirs with a total capacity to store 95 million gallons of water in their service area. Groundwater Approximately 48 percent (48%) of CVWD’s overall water supply comes from local groundwater wells in the Chino Groundwater Basin and the Cucamonga Basin, located hundreds of feet below the earth’s surface. Groundwater is pumped out through a system of 208 207 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 100 wells maintained by CVWD, disinfected, flows into storage reservoirs, and ultimately makes its way into the distribution system to consumers. CVWD currently operates twenty (20) groundwater wells throughout the district service area. Local Canyon and Tunnel Water Three percent (3%) of the water delivered to CVWD consumers is local canyon and tunnel water that flows out of canyons and foothills within the service area, often a combination of surface and groundwater. These sources include Cucamonga Canyon, Day Canyon, Deer Canyon, East Etiwanda Canyon, and a number of tunnels in the local mountains. This water is treated at CVWD’s Arthur H. Bridge or Lloyd W. Michael Treatment Plants, flows into storage reservoirs, and then into the distribution system to consumers. Imported Water CVWD purchases 46 percent (46%) of its water through the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), who purchases water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), a regional water wholesaler that delivers imported water from the State Water Project. State Water Project water originates in Northern California in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and makes a 400 mile journey to the CVWD service area. This water is treated at CVWD’s Lloyd W. Michael Water Treatment Plant, the largest conventional treatment plant in the region. The treated water is stored in reservoirs until it is needed by consumers. The State Water Project, also known as the California Aqueduct, transports water 600 miles from Northern California to the southern portion of the state. It is owned and operated by the State of California and is the longest aqueduct system in the world, featuring 23 dams and reservoirs, 22 pumping plants that lift water to heights of 3,500 feet, and six power plants. The aqueduct is comprised of 473 miles of canals, 175 miles of pipeline and 20 miles of tunnels. Recycled Water The IEUA treats all the wastewater from the CVWD service area. The IEUA currently receives over 50 million gallons per day of wastewater from its regional treatment plants. This water is treated to Title 22 regulations set forth by the State Water Resources Control Board and distributed throughout the service area. IEUA delivers recycled water for agriculture, municipal irrigation, industrial uses and for groundwater replenishment. CVWD provides recycled water for landscape irrigation purposes to parks, medians and parkways, schools, golf courses, and other non-potable needs. The Project site and the greater City of Rancho Cucamonga are located within the Santa Ana River watershed. Runoff from the City drains into Reach 3 of the Upper Santa Ana River, which is the segment located between Prado Dam and Mission Boulevard in Riverside County. The Santa Ana River drains a 2,620-square-mile area located south of the east-west ridges of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and north of the Santa Margarita River watershed. The 100-mile long river generally runs southwesterly from the San Bernardino Mountains north of Seven Oaks Dam toward the San Bernardino and Chino valleys, cutting through the Santa Ana Mountains, and flowing down into the Orange 209 208 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 101 County coastal plain before its outlet at the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is underlain by the Chino and Cucamonga groundwater basins, with the Cucamonga basin underlying the area located generally north of the Red Hill inferred fault and the Chino basin underlying the area south of the fault. The Red Hill Fault acts as a hydrological barrier between the two groundwater basins. The Project site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin. The Chino Ground Water Basin is located under approximately 235 square miles of the upper Santa Ana River Watershed, and is bound by the Red Hill Fault, the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Cucamonga Basin to the north; the Rialto-Colton Fault to the northeast; the groundwater divide to the Rialto-Colton Basin to the east; Jurupa Hills, Pedley Hills, and the Riverside Narrows to the southeast; La Sierra Hills and the Temescal Basin to the south; Chino Hills and Puente Hills to the southwest; the groundwater divide to the Pomona and Claremont Groundwater Basins to the west; and the San Jose Fault to the northwest. Water sources in the Chino Basin include water flow infiltration within unlined stream channels overlying the Basin; infiltration of storm water and municipal wastewater discharges within the Santa Ana River channel; underflow from the saturated sediments and fractures within the nearby mountains and hills; artificial recharge at storm water spreading grounds; imported water; recycled water; underflow from seepage across the Red Hill Fault (from the Cucamonga Basin), the San Jose Fault (from the Claremont Heights and Pomona basins), and the Rialto-Colton Fault (from the Rialto-Colton Basin); intermittent underflow from the Temescal Basin; and percolation of rainfall and returns from irrigation use. As set forth in the City’s 2010 GPEIR, an average of approximately 154,000 acre-feet/year of water was pumped from this basin between 1985 and 2005 (MWD 2007). In 2006/2007, approximately 171,491 acre-feet was pumped from the basin. In 2007/2008, 137,427 acre- feet was pumped from the basin (Chino Basin Watermaster 2008). Amounts in excess of the safe yield were accompanied by basin recharge with imported water and recycled water. In the existing condition, the Project site is vacant, unimproved land with seasonal vegetation. The Project site development plan proposes four speculative light-industrial warehouse buildings with associated parking, loading, and flatwork that will result an impervious site area of 90%. As such, three infiltration basins (Subsurface Trenches) are proposed onsite in conjunction with the Project site development plan. In addition, a 10% landscape component is proposed along the site perimeter and various smaller locations adjacent to the building areas throughout the Project site. Runoff from roof and hardscape areas will be directed to the infiltration basins and to the landscaped portions when feasible to allow for maximum retention time before being picked up by the storm drain system. According to Table 16, Operational Water Usage and Waste Generation of the AQ/GHG Analysis, the Project will have a total of annual water usage of 61,065,263 gallons of water (187.40 acre feet per year). This equates to 0.28% of the 67,500 acre feet of water available from CVWD. This amount is consistent with the assumptions contained in the Cucamonga Valley Water District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, (CVWD 2015 UWMP), as the Project is consistent with the City General Plan Land Use designation and zoning classifications, which were utilized in the CVWD 2015 UWMP assumptions. Impacts will be incremental, yet, they were anticipated in the CVWD 2015 UWMP. 210 209 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 102 No component of the Project will deplete groundwater supplies. The Project design, which incorporates three infiltration basins (Subsurface Trenches) and a 10% landscaping component, as depicted on the Project plans and Project-specific WQMP, will allow for water to percolate back into the ground and allow for groundwater recharge. This will offset any impacts from the other non-pervious elements contained in the Project. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Any impacts would be considered less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c.i) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Currently, the Project site consists of approximately 13.45 gross acres of generally flat, vacant unimproved land. Upon development, the site will consist of approximately 12.24 net acres due to the proposed widening of 7th Street along the site’s southern boundary and the widening of Acacia Street along the westerly portion of the site’s northern boundary. The Project site elevation ranges from approximately 1,096 feet AMSL at the northeast corner to approximately 1083 feet AMSL at the southwest corner. The Project proposes the on-site construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area, plus associated parking and site improvements. Offsite improvements include half-width street improvements along 7th Street, the extension of storm drains in 7th Street and utility (water and sewer) connections. The Project site is currently vacant with seasonal vegetation, and is tributary to the Archibald Avenue Storm Drain, Cucamonga Creek Channel (Primary Hydrologic Basin No. 801.21) with the downstream waters being Mill Creek/Prado Area (Primary Hydrologic Basin No. 801.21) and Santa Ana River Reach 3. The Cucamonga Creek Channel is listed for pathogens, bacteria, nutrients and suspended solids and Santa Ana River Reach 3 is listed for pathogens and bacteria. A public storm drain system will be installed in 7th Street contiguous to the Project site’s southern boundary connecting to the Archibald Storm Drain and will provide catch basin 211 210 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 103 filters and perforated sub surface storm drain chambers to address water quality issues from the development. Rough grading of the Project site will consist of approximately 2,800 cubic yards net cut and 36,300 cubic yards net fill, resulting in approximately 33,500 cubic yards of import (excluding sub excavation quantities). Figure 10-1, Hydrology Map and Figure 10-2, Site and Drainage Plan identify the proposed on-site drainage system for the Project site. The Project Specific WQMP delineates three Drainage Areas / Drainage Management Areas for the Project site, DA 1 / DMA A, DA 2 / DMA B, and DA 3 / DMA-C: • DA 1 / DMA A is comprised of 39,389 square feet (0.90 acre) located at the east end of the Project site, contiguous east of proposed Buildings 3 and 4, consisting of proposed paved parking, access drive, and strip landscaped planting areas. DA 1 / DMA A will be served by the underground Subsurface Infiltration Trench “A;” • DA 2 / DMA B consists of 432,711 square feet (9.93 acres) comprising the bulk of the Project site, all of Building 3 and Building 4, inclusive of the paved parking, loading, access drives, and perimeter landscaping along the north and south boundaries of the site. DA 2 / DMA B will be served by the underground Subsurface Infiltration Trench “B;” • DA 3 / DMA C is comprised of 85,096 square feet (1.95 acres) located at the west end of the Project site fronting along both Archibald Avenue and 7th Street, consisting of proposed Buildings 1 and 2, paved parking, loading, access drives, and strip landscaped planting areas along the street frontages. DA 3 / DMA C will be served by the underground Subsurface Infiltration Trench “C.” On-Site Drainage and Infiltration Trenches As discussed in the Drainage Study, Project site drainage is overland and by sheet flow generally in a southwesterly direction. The Project site is not subject to off-site runoff. Upon completion of development, the Project site’s surface area will be 90% covered with impervious materials (paving, flatwork, and building roof-tops). Storm water within each of the three drainage areas will surface flow into the three bio-retention Subsurface Trenches. • Proposed Subsurface Infiltration Trench “A” will be located at the south end of DA 1 / DMA A. Infiltration Trench “A” consists of an 80-foot long 84-inch diameter perforated Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Pipe in an 8’ x 8’ gravel trench. A subsurface lateral pipe will connect the infiltration trench to the proposed public storm drain at the east end of the 7th Street cul-de-sac. • Proposed Subsurface Infiltration Trench “B” will be located at the south end of DA 2 / DMA B. Infiltration Trench “B” consists of two 425-foot long (850’ total) 84-inch diameter perforated CMP Pipes in two side by side 8’ x 8’ gravel trenches. A subsurface lateral pipe will connect the to the west end of the infiltration trench(s) to the proposed public storm drain to be extended in 7th Street in conjunction with the Project site development. • Proposed Subsurface Infiltration Trench “C” will be located at the south end of DA 3 / DMA C. Infiltration Trench “C” consists of two 84-foot long 84-inch diameter perforated CMP Pipes in two side by side 8’ x 8’ gravel trenches. A subsurface lateral pipe will 212 211 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 104 connect to the east end of the infiltration trench(s) to the proposed public storm drain at the to be extended in 7th Street in conjunction with the Project site development. Offsite Drainage The Project site is tributary to an existing storm drain in Archibald Avenue. A storm drain in 7th Street will be constructed to collect runoff from the three on-site subareas (DA 1 / DMA A, DA 2 / DMA B, and DA 3 / DMA C) in conjunction with development of the Project site. The 100-year storm event was modeled in the rational method hydrology calculations in the Drainage Study. The rational method hydrologic model, as defined by Flood Control for San Bernardino County, was followed in the determination of storm runoff. Advanced Engineering Software (AES) was utilized for hydrology calculations and some street flow depth analysis. The three proposed bio-retention water quality Infiltration Trenches will accept and allow the 100-year flows generated from the area it serves to bypass into the Storm Drain system. The on-site runoff will be detained for a specific duration based on low impact development (LID) requirements. The results show that the drainage plan is sized with sufficient capacity to handle 100-year storm events. Conclusion A net increase in runoff flow rates and volumes from the Project site is anticipated in the developed condition due to the addition of impervious surface areas; however, the proposed extension of a public storm drain in 7th Street and the existing public storm drain system in Archibald Street are designed to handle the runoff from the Project site development. Hydraulic calculations also indicate that all inlets and storm drain lines proposed in conjunction with development of the Project site are sized adequately to handle the 100- year storm event. Based on the results set forth in the Drainage Study, the Project site facilities, with ultimate development and adequate maintenance, will convey flows safely through the region in accordance with City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements. Water erosion will be prevented through the City’s standard, mandated, erosion control practices required pursuant to the CBC, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), inclusive of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and/or sandbags. These standard conditions are applicable to all development; therefore, they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. With the inclusion of these standard conditions, any impacts from implementation of the Project relative to substantially altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, would be considered less than significant. 213 212 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 105 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c.ii) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? X Please reference the discussion set forth in Section 10.c.i. The Project site currently consists of approximately 13.45 gross acres of generally flat, vacant unimproved land. Upon development, the site will consist of approximately 12.24 net acres due to the proposed widening of 7th Street along the site’s southern boundary and the widening of Acacia Street along the westerly portion of the site’s northern boundary. The Project proposes the on-site construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area, plus associated parking and site improvements. Upon completion of development, the Project site’s surface area will be 90% covered with impervious materials (paving, flatwork, and building roof-tops). The on-site drainage plan provides for three drainage areas / drainage management areas, each of which will be served by three separate subsurface Infiltration Trenches which will capture drainage via surface flow. The net increase in runoff flow rates and volumes from the Project site is anticipated in the developed condition due to the addition of impervious surface areas; however, the proposed extension of a public storm drain in 7th Street and the existing public storm drain system in Archibald Street are designed to handle the runoff from the Project site development. As summarized above, and set forth in the Drainage Study, hydraulic calculations indicate that all inlets and storm drain facilities proposed in conjunction with development of the Project site are sized adequately to handle the 100- year storm event. Any impacts from implementation of the Project relative to substantially altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces,, or substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, would be considered less than significant. 214 213 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 106 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c.iii) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would 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? X Please reference the discussions set forth in Section 10.c.i. The Project site development shall meet all applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements to capture and manage the discharge of surface runoff without any substantial change in the rate or amount. The Project has been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department, to mitigate any potential impacts, as listed above, through site design, preparation of a WQMP, and adherence to the requirements of the NPDES. These are standard conditions for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. With the inclusion of these standard conditions, any impacts from implementation of the Project that would create or contribute runoff water that would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would 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, would be considered less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c.iv) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? X Reference Sections 10.a, 10.b, 10.c.i, 10.c.ii and 10.c.iii. The Project has been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department, to mitigate any potential impacts through site design, preparation of a WQMP, and adherence to the 215 214 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 107 requirements of the NPDES. These are standard conditions for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. With the inclusion of these standard conditions, any impacts from implementation of the Project that would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows, would be considered less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? X The Project site is located approximately 38 miles northeast from the nearest coastline (Pacific Ocean/Huntington Beach). The Project site elevation ranges from approximately 1,083 to 1,096 feet AMSL. The closest bodies of water include the Santa Ana River located over nine (9) miles to the south/southeast and Lytle Creek located approximately eleven (11) miles to the northeast; followed by the Puddingston Reservoir (San Dimas) approximately twelve (12) miles to the west, and the Prado Basin/Prado Dam located approximately fourteen (14) miles to the south/southwest. Lake Matthews (unincorp. southeast Corona) is located approximately nineteen (19) miles to the south/southeast, and Lake Arrowhead is located over twenty-five (25) miles to the northwest. According to the Geo Investigation, Geologic Hazards, Section IV (p. 6), because the site is situated at an elevated inland location and is not immediately adjacent to any impounded bodies of water, risk associated with tsunamis and seiches is considered negligible. There are no volcanic hazards in proximity of the Project site and the potential hazard from a mudflow is virtually nonexistent. Based on the above, the Project would not result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X Reference the discussion in 10.a. A Project WQMP has been prepared specifically to comply with the requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 216 215 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 108 The Project site is located in the Santa Ana Region Watershed. With adherence to, and implementation of the conclusions and recommendations set forth in the WQMP the Project site development plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Any impacts would be less than significant. 217 216 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 109 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY FIGURES 218 217 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 110 Figure 10-1 Hydrology Map Source: Project Plans (Appendix J) 219 218 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 111 Figure 10-2 Site and Drainage Plan Source: Project Plans (Appendix J) 220 219 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 112 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Source(s): City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan, Chapter 2 Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan; City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Map; Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Article III, Chapter 17.24, Table 17.24.020-1 Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Districts; Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Chapter 17.36.040, Development Standards For Industrial Districts, Table 17.36.040-1 Development Standards For Industrial Zoning Districts and Table 17.36.040-2 Streetscape Setback Requirements; Habitat Assessment for the Approximately 13-Acre Greenfield Property, Located on the Northeast Corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, prepared by ELMT Consulting, 4-17-2019 (Habitat Assessment, Appendix C). SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? X The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is surrounded by general industrial land use to the north, south, east and west; with a pocket of seasoned low-density residential use (2-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) to the southwest. It is further noted that the properties adjacent north of Acacia Street are improved with older single family residences which have an underlying General Plan Land Use designation and zoning classification of General Industrial. Any single-family uses within these houses would be considered legal non-conforming. The Project proposes the on-site construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area, plus associated parking and site improvements. The Project site’s proposed light-industrial warehouse use conforms with the underlying General Plan Land Use designation (General Industrial) and Zoning classification (General Industrial; GI). Furthermore, the proposed development plan is in balance with surrounding land use adjacent to the site. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide and established community. There would be no impacts. 221 220 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 113 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X Please reference the discussion set forth in Section 11.a. In summary, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan land use designation and Zoning for the Project site are: • General Plan Land Use designation: General Industrial • Zoning classification: General Industrial (GI) The Project site is not located within or proximate to a local coastal program or district. Industrial areas in Rancho Cucamonga benefit from their strategic location near the I-10 and I-15 freeways, the Metrolink station, and railway lines. A variety of light industrial, business park, office, manufacturing, heavy industrial, and similar business and industrial uses have been established within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, providing diverse employment opportunities for residents throughout the Inland Empire. The City has established three (3) designations for the varying industrial use types within the city, namely 1) Industrial Park, 2) General Industrial (Project site designation), and 3) Heavy Industrial. The General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial permits a wide range of industrial activities that include warehousing, manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. Where adjacent to residential uses, properties designated General Industrial should be designed for office uses, or site planning should incorporate buffering techniques to minimize noise and traffic impacts associated with the industrial activity. As set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the GI (General Industrial) zoning classification applies to areas within the City that will accommodate the widest possible range of light and medium industrial activity, including manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, wholesaling, heavy commercial, and office uses. The district may be employed as a buffer between nonindustrial uses and heavy industrial uses. The development standards and setback requirements within the GI zone are summarized in Table 11-1, General Industrial Zone Development Standards and Table 11-2, General Industrial Zone Streetscape Setback Requirements, respectively. 222 221 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 114 Table 11-1 General Industrial Zone Development Standards Lot area (minimum) 0.5 ac Lot width (minimum) 100 ft. Setback (minimum distance between structure and property line in feet) Front yard See table below Side yard 5 ft.(1) Street side yard (and rear yard abutting street) See table below Rear yard 0 f.t(1) Distance Between Buildings Primary buildings Must meet bldg. code req’s Accessory buildings Must meet bldg. code req’s Building Height (maximum in feet) Primary buildings 35 ft. at the front setback; Maximum height is 75 feet Accessory buildings 18 ft. Floor Area Ratio (maximum ratio of building to lot square footage) Floor area ratio 50—60% Open Space Requirement (min. percentage of O.S. per parcel or project) Open space/landscape area 10% Table notes: (1) See table below for parcels abutting special boulevards (Special Streetscape Requirements). Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Chapter 17.36.040, Development standards for Industrial Districts, http://qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/view.php?topic=17-iii-17_36-17_36_040&frames=on. Table 11-2 General Industrial Zone Streetscape Setback Requirements Street Type Average Depth of Landscape(1, 2) Building Setback(2, 3, 4, 6) Parking Setback(5) Major Arterial & Special Boulevard 45 ft 45 ft. 25 ft. Secondary 35 ft. 35 ft. 20 ft. Local/Collector 25 ft. 25 ft. 15 ft. Table notes: (1) The average depth shall be uninterrupted from the face of curb, except for sidewalks, pedestrian hardscape, plazas and courtyards, and monument signs. (2) Parcels less than 225 feet in depth from the ultimate curb face on special boulevards are not required to provide an average depth of landscaping or building setback greater than 25 feet or 20% the depth of the property, whichever is greater. (3) As determined from ultimate face of curb. (4) Average depth of landscaping must still be provided. (5) Street frontage walls and fences over 3 feet in height are subject to building setbacks. (6) Setback may be increased based on building height. See Table 17.36.040-1. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Chapter 17.36.040, Development standards for Industrial Districts, http://qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/view.php?topic=17-iii-17_36-17_36_040&frames=on. The Project has been designed to meet the GI zoning requirements set forth in the Development Code. The Project does not require a General Plan Amendment (GPA), a Change of Zone (CZ), a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), or Variance (Var.) for approval as proposed. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There would be no impacts. 223 222 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 115 12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Source(s): City General Plan, Resource Conservation Element, Mineral Resources, Figure RC-2, Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources (p. RC-9) and Table RC-1, Areas of Designated Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources (p. RC-11). SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X The Project site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1. Therefore, the Project would not 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. No impacts would occur. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impacts would occur. 224 223 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 116 13. NOISE. Source(s): Scheu Business Center Acoustic Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-23-2019 (Acoustic Study, Appendix G); General Plan Environmental Impact Report Section 4.12 (GPEIR, Noise); and Google Maps. Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the Acoustic Study, unless otherwise noted. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project result in? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X Fundamentals of Noise This section of the report provides basic information about noise and presents some of the terms used in this Section. • Sound, Noise, and Acoustics The sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. The sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic or stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted. • Frequency and Hertz A continuous sound is described by its frequency (pitch) and its amplitude (loudness). Frequency relates to the number of pressure oscillations per second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass sounding) and high-frequency sounds are high in pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second (cycles) are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human ear can hear from the bass pitch starting out at 20 Hz all the way to the high pitch of 20,000 Hz. • Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness. The loudness of sound increases or decreases, as the amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micro-Newton per square inch meter (N/m2), also called micro-Pascal (μPa). One μPa is approximately one hundred billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric 225 224 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 117 pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or Lp) is used to describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called decibels and abbreviated as dB. • Addition of Decibels Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by simple plus or minus addition. When two (2) sounds or equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater than the original single SPL. In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3dB increase. If two (2) sounds differ by approximately 10 dB the higher sound level is the predominant sound. • Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, (A-weighted scale) and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. The A-scale weighing is typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibel (dBA). Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in the noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g. doubling the volume of traffic on a highway), would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. • Noise Descriptors Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant, while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels. Following are the most commonly used noise descriptors along with brief definitions. A-Weighted Sound Level The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A- weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high- frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM. 226 225 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 118 Decibel (dB) A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals. dB(A) A-weighted sound level (see definition above). Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ) The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period. Habitable Room Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces. L(n) The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90, and L99, etc. Noise Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...". Outdoor Living Area Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not 227 226 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 119 typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas). Percent Noise Levels See L(n). Sound Level (Noise Level) The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum. Sound Level Meter An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels. Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) The dBA level which, if it lasted for one (1) second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event. • Traffic Noise Prediction Noise levels associated with traffic depends on a variety of factors: (1) volume of traffic, (2) speed of traffic, (3) auto, medium truck (2 – 6 wheels) and heavy truck percentage (3 axles and greater), and sound propagation. The greater the volume of traffic, higher speeds and truck percentages equate to a louder volume of noise. A doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along a roadway will increase noise levels by approximately 3 dB; reasons for this are discussed in the sections above. • Sound Propagation As sound propagates from a source it spreads geometrically. The sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The movement of vehicles down a roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical spreading versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use the hard site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels. Hard site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the receiver. Soft site conditions such as grass, soft dirt or landscaping attenuate noise at an additional rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall noise attenuation of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 6.0 dB per 228 227 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 120 doubling of distance for a point source. Research has demonstrated that atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise levels when noise receivers are located 200 feet from a noise source. Wind, temperature, air humidity, and turbulence can further impact how far sound can travel. City of Rancho Cucamonga Noise Regulations The City of Rancho Cucamonga outlines their noise regulations and standards within the General Plan Public Health and Safety Element and Section 17.66 of the Municipal Code. The noise standards from the General Plan and Municipal Code are provided in Appendix A of the Acoustic Study. • Noise/Land Use Compatibility The City of Rancho Cucamonga establishes planning criteria for determining a development’s noise/land use compatibility based on the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Table 13-1, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, summarizes the City’s Noise/Land Use Compatibility guidelines for land uses applicable to the Project: Table 13-1 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Noise Limit (CNEL) Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential <50 – 60 55 – 65 65 – 75 >75 Industrial <75 70 - 80 - - 75 to 85 Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. The outdoor environment will seem noisy. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor 229 228 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 121 environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be usable. • Municipal Code Residential Noise Standards The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 17.66.050 -- Noise Standards describes the noise regulations for controlling unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds in residential areas. The Project must not exceed the residential noise limit at the nearest adjacent residential property line. Table 13-2, City of Rancho Cucamonga Residential Noise Limits, shows the Rancho Cucamonga Residential Noise Limits. Table 13-2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Residential Noise Limits Location Time Period Noise Standard L25 (15-min) L17 (10-min) L8 (5-min) LMAX (any time) Residential Daytime (7am - 10pm) 65 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA 79 dBA 80 dBA Nighttime (10pm – 7am) 60 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 74 dBA 75 dBA • Municipal Code Industrial Noise Standards The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 17.66.110 -- Special Industrial Performance Standards establishes noise standards to allow industrial uses to operate consistent with the overall characteristics of the land use category. The Project is zoned for General Industrial (GI) uses and is therefore required to follow the Class B performance standards. Table 13-3, City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Performance Standards, shows the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District Class B performance standards in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Table 13-3 City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Performance Standards Land Use Noise Standard1 General Industrial (Class B) 80 dBA 1 Noise level anywhere on the lot. Noise caused by motor vehicles and trains is exempted from this standard. • Construction Noise Regulation Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the City’s municipal code states that the following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of the noise code; 230 229 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 122 Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: a. When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. b. When adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA at the when measured at the adjacent property line. Study Method and Procedures The following discussion describes the measurement procedures, measurement locations, and noise modeling procedures and assumptions used in the noise analysis. • Measurement Procedures and Criteria Noise measurements are taken to determine the existing noise levels. A noise receiver or receptor is any location in the noise analysis in which noise might produce an impact. The following criteria are used to select measurement locations and receptors: • Locations expected to receive the highest noise impacts, such as the first row of houses; • Locations that are acoustically representative and equivalent of the area of concern; • Human land usage; and • Sites clear of major obstruction and contamination. Sound level measurements were conducted in accordance with Caltrans technical noise specifications. All measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). A Larson Davis 712 Type 2 sound level meter was used to conduct short-term (10-minute) noise measurement. The Leq, Lmin, Lmax, L2, L8, L25, and L50 statistical data were recorded over the measurement time period intervals and the information was utilized to define the noise characteristics for the Project. L17 statistical data was interpolated using a linear trendline analysis. The following gives a brief description of the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement procedures for sound level measurements: • Microphones for sound level meters were placed five (5) feet above the ground for all short-term noise measurements; • Sound level meters were calibrated before and after each measurement; • Following the calibration of equipment, a windscreen was placed over the microphone; 231 230 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 123 • Frequency weighting was set on “A” and slow response; • Results of the short-term noise measurements were recorded on field data sheets; • During any short-term noise measurements, any noise contaminations such as barking dogs, local traffic, lawn mowers, or aircraft fly-overs were noted; and • Temperature and sky conditions were observed and documented in Appendix B of the Acoustic Study includes photos, field sheets, and measured noise data. • Traffic Noise Modeling Traffic noise from vehicular traffic was projected using a version of the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the key input parameters. The following outlines the key adjustments made to the computer model for the roadway inputs: • Roadway classification – (e.g. freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc.); • Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outer most travel lanes on each side of the roadway); • Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes, Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks; • Roadway grade and angle of view; • Site Conditions (e.g. soft vs. hard); and • Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. The following outlines key adjustments to the computer model for the Project site parameter inputs: • Vertical and horizontal distances (Sensitive receptor distance from noise source); • Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (Noise barrier distance from sound source and receptor); • Traffic noise source spectra; and • Topography. Traffic noise levels are projected at 100 feet from the centerline of the roadway. The noise levels were calculated using traffic volumes presented in the Scheu Business Center Update Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 9-18-2019 (TIS, Appendix H). The traffic noise levels do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may reduce traffic noise levels. Table 13-4, Roadway Parameters, indicates the roadway parameters utilized in the Acoustic Study. 232 231 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 124 Table 13-4 Roadway Parameters1 No. Class. Lanes Site Condition Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Existing Project Only Existing Plus Project Opening Year Without Project Opening Year With Project 1. Archibald Avenue: 8th Street to 6th Street Major Arterial 4 Soft 29,523 302 29,825 32,213 32,515 2. Acacia Street: East of Archibald Avenue Local 2 Soft 253 529 782 259 788 3. 7th Street: East of Archibald Avenue Collector 2 Soft 1,137 982 2,119 1,160 2,142 1 Roadway parameters based on TIS (Appendix H). Table 13-5, Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix), indicates the vehicle distribution and truck mix utilized for all surface streets in the Project study area. The vehicle distribution is based on the Noise Assessment for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update (2010). Table 13-5 Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix) Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime % (7 AM - 7 PM) Evening % (7 PM - 10 PM) Night % (10 PM - 7 AM) Total % of Traffic Flow Automobiles 75.54 14.02 10.43 92.00 Medium Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00 3.00 Heavy Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00 5.00 • Stationary Noise Modeling The stationary noise was projected using a computer program that replicates the FHWA Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the reference energy noise level. For each stationary source, the referenced noise level was applied to the model. The model outputs the projected noise level 233 232 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 125 based on the following key parameters: • Measured referenced noise level – (e.g. how loud a source is at a specific distance); • Vertical and horizontal distances (sensitive receptor distance from noise source); • Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (noise barrier distance from sound source and receptor); • Typical noise source spectra; and • Topography. Table 13-6, Reference Stationary Noise Level Measurements, indicates the measured referenced noise level measurements. The noise measurement data indicates the distance the microphone was placed from the noise source and the statistical data. Measurements were taken over a 10-minute interval. Table 13-6 Reference Stationary Noise Level Measurements Source Distance from Source (feet) Noise Levels (dBA) Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 Loading Dock Activity 6.0 79.3 97.0 91.5 81.0 74.5 71.5 Parking Lot Noise 6.0 63.8 79.5 68.5 65.5 64.5 63.0 HVAC Condenser Unit 3.0 88.5 88.5 88.5 88.5 88.5 88.5 To estimate the future noise levels during typical conditions, the reference noise levels were adjusted to the nearest sensitive receptor location property line (south and west of the project site). Adjusted noise levels are based on the distance of the receptor location relative to the noise source, local topography and the recommended parapet wall shielding wall for the equipment. The noise levels assume that the stationary sources are operating continuously when in reality all noise sources will operate intermittently throughout the daily operation. • Construction Noise Modeling The construction noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1, together with several key construction parameters, to estimate future construction noise impacts. Key inputs include distance to the sensitive receiver, equipment usage, and baseline parameters for the Project site. Construction noise impacts are analyzed for each phase of construction anticipated for the Project. Noise levels are calculated based on the average distance of equipment over an 8- hour period to the property line. 234 233 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 126 Existing Noise Environment The existing noise environment for the Project site and surrounding areas has been established based on collected noise measurement data. Existing roadway noise has also been modeled based on existing roadway characteristics and traffic volume. Noise measurement data indicates that traffic noise propagating from the adjacent roadways, as well as activities from the surrounding commercial land uses, are the main sources of ambient noise at the Project site and surrounding area. • Short-Term (10-Minute) Noise Measurement Results Using a Larson Davis 712 Type 2 sound level meter, two (2) short-term 10-minute noise measurements were recorded at the adjacent property lines. The noise monitoring locations were selected based on locations that are representative of the existing noise environment and exposure to sensitive noise areas. Short-term noise measurements are conducted during normal daytime hours and considered samples of typical ambient conditions. The Leq, Lmin, Lmax, L8, L17, and L25, statistical data were reported over the 10-minute period. The information was utilized to define the noise characteristics for the Project. The following details and observations are provided for the short-term noise measurements. The results of the short-term (ST) measurements are presented in Table 13-7, Short-Term Noise Measurement Results. Table 13-7 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results1 Site No. Time Started Leq Lmax Lmin L8 L172 L25 ST-1 11:51 AM 56.0 72.5 46.1 60.0 58.2 52.0 ST-2 12:09 PM 55.7 73.0 43.3 58.6 57.7 51.7 1 Noise measurements conducted for 10-minute intervals during normal daytime conditions. 2 L17 statistical data has been interpolated using a linear trend line analysis. ST-1 Measurement taken along the sidewalk of Acacia Street and adjacent to the nearest residential property to the Project site, approximately 50 feet from the site. Ambient noise includes traffic noise from Archibald Avenue and Acacia Street, pedestrians and barking dogs. ST-2 Measurement taken at the nearest industrial P/L to the south of 7th Street. Ambient noise includes traffic noise from Archibald Avenue, 7th street and the commercial property parking lot and operational activities. Figure 13-1, Noise Measurement Locations, shows the noise measurement locations. Appendix B of the Acoustic Study includes photos, field sheets, and measured noise data. 235 234 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 127 • Existing Roadway Noise Levels Table 13-8, Existing Roadway Noise Levels (dBA CNEL), shows the modeled existing traffic related CNEL noise levels calculated at 100 feet from the centerline of roadway segments adjacent to the site. The distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also shown. The noise levels were calculated using traffic volumes presented in the TIS. The traffic noise levels do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may reduce traffic noise levels. The existing roadway noise levels provide a baseline of the existing traffic noise environment. Table 13-8 Existing Roadway Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 ft. Distance to Contour (Ft) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Archibald Avenue 8th Street to 6th Street 72.0 136 293 632 1,362 Acacia Street East of Archibald Avenue 47.8 3 7 15 33 7th Street East of Archibald Avenue 57.0 14 29 63 136 Construction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts were assessed from the Project site to the surrounding adjacent land uses. The Acoustic Study assumed that there would be no pile driving activities as part of the Project. • Construction Noise Table 13-9, Typical Construction Noise Levels shows typical construction noise levels for different types of equipment. This data was compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency. 236 235 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 128 Table 13-9 Typical Construction Noise Levels Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet Earth Moving Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76 Front Loaders 73 - 84 Backhoes 73 - 92 Tractors 75 - 95 Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92 Pavers 85 - 87 Trucks 81 - 94 Materials Handling Concrete Mixers 72 - 87 Concrete Pumps 81 - 83 Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86 Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87 Stationary Pumps 68 - 71 Generators 71 - 83 Compressors 75 - 86 Impact Equipment Pneumatic Wrenches 82 - 87 Jack Hammers, Rock Drills 80 - 99 Pile Drivers (Peak) 95-105 Other Vibrators 68 - 82 Saws 71 - 82 The degree of construction noise will vary for different areas of the Project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. The Acoustic Study analyzed potential noise impacts during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Noise levels are calculated based on a minimum average distance of equipment over an 8-hour period at 100 feet from property line. During the construction period, the contractors would be required to comply with the Rancho Cucamonga noise standards in the Municipal Code. Section 17.66.050(D)(4) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code states that the following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of the noise code; “Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, 237 236 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 129 remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: a. When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. b. When adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA at the when measured at the adjacent property line.” This is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Table 13-10, Construction Noise Impact Analysis shows the estimated construction noise levels calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1. As shown in Table 13-10, the Project has the potential to exceed the residential and industrial noise standards for construction activities. 238 237 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 130 Table 13-10 Construction Noise Impact Analysis Phase Equipment Quantity Calculated Noise Level at 100 ft. (dBA) Combined 8- hr Noise Level (dBA) Lmax Leq Leq Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 75.6 71.7 81.6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 78.0 74.0 Grading Excavators 2 74.7 70.7 82.2 Graders 1 79.0 75.0 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 75.6 71.7 Scrapers 2 77.6 73.6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 78.0 74.0 Building Construction Cranes 1 74.5 66.6 80.3 Forklifts 3 69.0 65.0 Generator Sets 1 74.0 71.6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 78.0 74.0 Welders 1 68.0 64.0 Paving Pavers 2 71.2 68.2 78.7 Paving Equipment 2 78.0 74.0 Rollers 2 74.0 67.0 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 71.6 67.7 67.7 Maximum Construction Phase Noise Level - Leq (dBA) 82.2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Construction Noise Standards – Residential 65 City of Rancho Cucamonga Construction Noise Standards – Industrial 70 Potentially Significant Short-Term Noise Impact (Yes/No?) Yes In order to mitigate the short-term construction noise levels, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 shall be implemented. MM-NOI-1 The Project applicant shall implement a noise monitoring program during construction. The monitoring program will alert construction 239 238 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 131 management personnel when noise levels approach the upper limits of the 8-hour Leq exceedance threshold (65 dBA) along the adjacent residential uses and 70 dBA at the adjacent industrial uses. Construction activity should cease prior to noise levels exceeding the 8-hour threshold. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2 shall also be implemented to mitigate the short- term construction noise levels. MM-NOI-2 The Project applicant shall install a temporary noise barrier along the northwest corner of the property to shield the residential units from the line of sight of the construction activity (in conformance with Exhibit D of the Acoustic Study). With adherence to Municipal Code Noise requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2, any short-term construction impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Reference Figure 13-2, Mitigation and Design Feature Locations. Operational Noise Impacts This section analyzes the change in the ambient environment as a result of operational noise impacts generated by the Project. The main sources of noise generated by the Project would include increases in auto/truck traffic along adjacent roadways and on-site operational activities. Noise level impacts are compared to the City of Rancho Cucamonga noise standards in the General Plan Noise Element and Municipal Code. • Traffic Source Noise The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic from the operation of the Project on the nearby roadways were calculated for direct and cumulative project conditions. 1. Existing Plus Project Conditions The direct impact of Project traffic added to the surrounding roadway network is shown in Table 13-11, Roadway Noise Impact Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions for existing plus project conditions. 240 239 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 132 Table 13-11 Roadway Noise Impact Analysis - Existing Plus Project Conditions Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) Does Project Generate a Significant Impact? Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Change as a Result of Project Archibald Avenue 8th Street to 6th Street 72.0 72.1 0.1 NO Acacia Street East of Archibald Avenue 47.8 52.7 4.9 NO 7th Street East of Archibald Avenue 57.0 59.7 2.7 NO Table 13-11 shows that the Project has the potential to increase traffic noise along Acacia Street by 4.9 dBA CNEL. Typically, a noise level increase of 3 dBA or more is perceptible to the human ear and the change as a result of the project would be considered a noticeable increase. However, because the noise levels along Acacia Street would still be within the normally acceptable residential noise limits, the Project impact would be less than significant. 2. Project Opening Year Conditions The cumulative impact of Project traffic added to the surrounding roadway network with the addition of other potential cumulative development projects and area-wide growth is shown in Table 13-12, Roadway Noise Impact Analysis – Project Opening Year Conditions for Project opening year conditions. Table 13-12 Roadway Noise Impact Analysis – Project Opening Year Conditions Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) Does Project Generate a Significant Impact? Opening Year Without Project Conditions Opening Year With Project Conditions Change as a Result of Project Archibald Avenue 8th Street to 6th Street 72.4 72.4 0 NO Acacia Street East of Archibald Avenue 47.9 52.8 4.9 NO 7th Street East of Archibald Avenue 57.1 59.8 2.7 NO Table 13-12 shows that the Project has the potential to increase traffic noise along Acacia Street by 4.9 dBA CNEL. Typically, a noise level increase of 3 dBA or more is perceptible to the human ear and the change as a result of the project would be considered a noticeable increase. However, because the noise levels along Acacia Street would still be within the 241 240 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 133 normally acceptable residential noise limits, the Project impact would be less than significant. • Stationary Source Noise The main sources of potential on-site stationary noise impacts to adjacent land uses would be noise from the truck loading areas, parking lot noise, and rooftop HVAC units. Loading and delivery activities are expected to take place in the designated loading dock areas of the Project site. The nearest loading docks to the adjacent residential homes to the north would be located approximately 260 feet away. The nearest loading docks to the adjacent industrial properties to the south are approximately 330 feet away. Loading dock activities would include noise from the tractor-trailers, truck idling, lift gates, backup alarms, forklifts and other mechanical equipment. Parking lot noise would occur from vehicle engine idling and exhaust, doors slamming, tires screeching, people talking, and the occasional horn honking. Parking lot noise would occur throughout the site and is conservatively assessed from the first parking space to adjacent uses; approximately 70 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property and 158 feet from the industrial uses to the south. HVAC equipment will be located on the roof of each building. Building-1 and Building-2 are expected to have one (1) five-ton HVAC unit each. Building-3 and Building-4 are expected to have (six) 6 five-ton HVAC units each. The closest HVAC units will be located approximately 415 feet from the nearest residential property line and approximately 280 feet to the industrial property line to the south. 1. Residential Land Use to the North - Daytime Table 13-13, Stationary Noise Impact Analysis – Daytime Residential shows the stationary noise impact analysis results for all sources operating simultaneously during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) at the nearest residential homes to the north of the site. 242 241 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 134 Table 13-13 Stationary Noise Impact Analysis – Daytime Residential Source Noise Level (dBA) Leq Lmax (max) L8 (5 min) L17 (10 min) L25 (15 min) Daytime (7:00 AM - 10:00 PM) Building 3 - Loading Dock 35.4 53.1 47.6 37.4 30.6 Building 4 - Loading Dock 42.7 60.4 54.9 44.7 37.9 Parking Lot Noise 42.8 58.5 47.5 44.8 43.5 Building 3 - HVAC 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 Building 4 - HVAC 43.3 43.3 43.3 43.3 43.3 Existing Ambient Measurement 56.0 72.5 60.0 58.2 52.0 Total Combined Exterior Noise Impact 56.5 73.0 65.7 58.7 52.8 City of Rancho Cucamonga Noise Level Criteria 65.0 80.0 79.0 70.0 65.0 Noise Level Exceeds Standard (?) No No No No No As shown in Table 13-13, the noise level impacts from the Project would be below the City’s daytime noise standard for residential uses. The Project impact would be considered less than significant. 2. Residential Land Use to the North - Nighttime Table 13-14, Stationary Noise Impact Analysis - Nighttime Residential shows the stationary noise impact analysis results for all sources operating simultaneously during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) at the nearest residential homes to the north of the site. 243 242 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 135 Table 13-14 Stationary Noise Impact Analysis - Nighttime Residential Source Noise Level (dBA) Leq Lmax (max) L8 (5 min) L8 (10 min) L25 (15 min) Nighttime (10:00 PM - 7:00 AM) Building 3 - Loading Dock 35.4 53.1 47.6 37.4 30.6 Building 4 - Loading Dock 42.7 60.4 54.9 44.7 37.9 Parking Lot Noise 42.8 58.5 47.5 44.8 43.5 Building 3 - HVAC 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 Building 4 - HVAC 43.3 43.3 43.3 43.3 43.3 Existing Ambient Measurement 51.0 67.5 55.0 53.2 47.0 Total Combined Exterior Noise Impact 52.3 68.8 55.8 54.8 49.2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Noise Level Criteria 60.0 75.0 74.0 65.0 60.0 Noise Level Exceeds Standard (?) No No No No No As shown in Table 13-14, the noise level impacts from the Project would be below the City’s nighttime noise standard for residential uses. Impacts would be less than significant. 3. Industrial Land Use to the South Table 13-15, Stationary Noise Impact Analysis - Industrial shows the stationary noise impact analysis results for all sources operating simultaneously during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) at the adjacent industrial property line to the south of the site. 244 243 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 136 Table 13-15 Stationary Noise Impact Analysis – Industrial Source Noise Level (dBA) Leq Lmax (max) Leq L17 (10 min) Leq Daytime (7:00 AM - 10:00 PM) Building 1 - HVAC 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 Building 2 - HVAC 47.7 47.7 47.7 47.7 47.7 Building 3 - HVAC 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 Building 4 - HVAC 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8 Building 3 - Loading Dock 33.1 50.8 45.3 35.1 28.3 Building 4 - Loading Dock 36.2 53.9 48.4 38.2 31.4 Parking Lot Noise 37.2 52.9 41.9 39.2 37.9 Existing Ambient Measurement 55.7 73.0 58.6 57.7 51.7 Total Combined Exterior Noise Impact 55.9 73.1 65.7 57.9 52.0 City of Rancho Cucamonga Noise Level Criteria 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Noise Level Exceeds Standard (?) No No No No No The noise level impact from the Project would be below the City’s industrial noise standard for Class B industrial uses. No impacts would occur. As demonstrated above, there will be no significant operational noise impacts. Still the Design Features DF-1 through DF-10 (see Project Description) shall be incorporated as best management practices: * DF-1 Provide an eight (8) foot high CMU block or tilt-up concrete wall along both ends of the loading docks/back of building area for buildings 3 and 4. * DF-2 Provide an eight (8) foot high CMU block or tilt-up concrete wall along the southern edge of the loading docks area for building 1. * DF-3 All rooftop mounted HVAC equipment shall be fully shielded or enclosed from the line of sight of adjacent residential uses. Shielding/parapet wall shall be at least as high as the equipment. DF-4 Truck deliveries, loading/unloading activity, and trash pick-up shall be limited to daytime (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) hours only. DF-5 Limit engine idling time for all trucks to 5 minutes or less. DF-6 Construction-related noise activities shall comply with the requirements set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66.050(D)(4) for adjacency to a residential land use, school, church or 245 244 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 137 similar type of use, adjacency to a commercial or industrial use. DF-7 No impact pile driving activities shall be allowed on the Project site. DF-8 During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices and equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. Idling equipment should be turned off when not in use. DF-9 Locate staging area, generators and stationary construction equipment as far from the northwest property line, as reasonably feasible. DF-10 Obtain a construction work permit from the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to starting construction. * Reference Figure 13-2, Mitigation and Design Feature Locations. With adherence to Municipal Code Noise requirements implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2, and adherence to Project Design Features DF-1 through DF-10, the Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Any impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Would the Project result in? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X Vibration Descriptors Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although ground-borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and only exists indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude. • PPV: Known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second. • RMS: Known as the root mean squared (RMS) can be used to denote vibration amplitude. • VdB: A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source. 246 245 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 138 Vibration Perception Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB. Outdoor sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground-borne noise or vibration. To counter the effects of ground-borne vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FTA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.3 inches per second without experiencing structural damage. Vibration Propagation There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. These are discussed below: • Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wavefront, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. • P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a "push-pull" fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. • S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. This drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests. Construction Related Vibration Level Prediction Operational activities are separated into two different categories. The vibration can be transient or continuous in nature. Each category can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the project area site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. The thresholds from Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual shown Table 13-16, Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria, below, provides general guidelines as to the maximum vibration limits for when vibration becomes potentially annoying. 247 246 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 139 Table 13-16 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Human Response PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Severe 2.00 0.40 Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo- stick compactors, crack-and- seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts. Table 13-17, Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria, provides general vibration damage potential thresholds. Table 13-17 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings ruin ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10 Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25 Older residential structures 0.50 0.30 New residential structures 1.00 0.50 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50 Soil conditions have an impact on how vibration propagates through the ground. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual provides suggested “n” values based on soil class. Table 13-18, Suggested “n” Values Based on Soil Classes, outlines the manual’s suggested values and description. 248 247 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 140 Table 13-18 Suggested “n” Values Based on Soil Classes Soil Class Description of Soil Material Suggested Value of "n" I Weak or soft soils: loose soils, dry or partially saturated peat and muck, mud, loose beach sand, and dune sand. 1.4 II Most sands, sandy clays, silty clays, gravel, silts, weathered rock. 1.3 III Hard soils: densely compacted sand, dry consolidated clay, consolidated glacial till, some exposed rock. 1.1 IV Hard, component rock: bedrock, freshly exposed hard rock. 1.0 Construction Vibration Modeling The construction vibration assessment utilizes referenced worst-case vibration levels and methodology set-forth within the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. The main sources of vibration impacts during construction of the project would be from bulldozer activity during site preparation, loading trucks during excavation, and vibratory rollers during paving. The vibratory activity required to comply with the applicable guidance thresholds criteria. Vibration impacts are assessed from the property line to the nearest adjacent structures to the south and west of the site. Residential structures are located approximately 56 feet southwesterly of the property line and industrial structures are located approximately 100 feet north, south, east and west of the Project site. All adjacent buildings are considered to be new residential structures and/or modern commercial buildings. No historical or fragile buildings are known to be located within the vicinity of the Project site. Vibratory impacts were calculated using the reference vibration levels, soil conditions and the reference equation PPV= PPV ref (25/D)^n (in/sec) (from Caltrans Manual) where: • PPV = reference measurement at 25 feet from the vibration source D = distance from equipment to the property line. • n= vibration attenuation rate through the ground (n=1.0 was utilized for the analysis) Construction Vibration To determine the vibratory impacts during construction, reference construction equipment vibration levels were utilized and then extrapolated to the façade of the nearest adjacent structure. 249 248 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 141 The construction of the Project would not require the use of substantial vibration inducing equipment or activities, such as pile drivers or blasting. The main sources of vibration impacts during construction of the Project would be from bulldozer activity during site preparation and grading, loading trucks during excavation, and vibratory rollers during paving. The construction vibration assessment utilizes the referenced vibration levels and methodology set-forth within the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Table 13-19, Typical Construction Vibration Levels, shows the referenced vibration levels. Table 13-19 Typical Construction Vibration Levels1 Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (inches/second) at 25 feet Approximate Vibration Level (LV) at 25 feet Piledriver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112 0.644 (typical) 104 Piledriver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105 0.170 typical 93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94 Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66 (slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drill 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 1 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. Table 13-20, Construction Vibration Impact Analysis, shows the Project’s construction- related vibration analysis at the residential structures to the southwest. 250 249 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 142 Table 13-20 Construction Vibration Impact Analysis Construction Activity Distance to Nearest Structure (ft.) Duration Calculated Vibration Level - PPV (in/sec) Damage Potential Level Annoyance Criteria Level Vibratory Roller 56 ft. Continuous/Frequent 0.086 Ruins and Ancient Monuments Distinctly Perceptible Large Bulldozer 56 ft. Continuous/Frequent 0.037 No Impact Barely Perceptible Loaded Trucks 56 ft. Continuous/Frequent 0.031 No Impact Barely Perceptible The estimated vibration noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors are compared to the Caltrans Vibration Manual thresholds. The worst-case vibratory impact from the site is estimated to be 0.086 PPV (in/sec) at the residential structures to the southwest. The annoyance potential of vibration from construction activities would range from “barely perceptible” to “distinctly perceptible” and the damage potential to the nearest structures would be “ruins and ancient monuments” category. No potential damage would be expected to the newer residential structures and modern commercial/industrial buildings in the nearby vicinity. Any impacts from construction vibrations would be less than significant. Operational Vibration The Project is not expected to generate significant operational groundborne vibration, such as that which might occur from heavy impact equipment. Truck circulation and loading dock activity may generate some vibration, however the impact would be localized to the source of the occurrence and not of a magnitude that could cause structural damage to adjacent sensitive receptors. For example, loaded trucks may cause vibration occurrences of up to 0.076 PPV at 25 feet (FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006), and which would be well below the damage potential of 0.5 PPV for newer structures. Any impacts from operational vibrations would be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X The Project site is located approximately 1.84 miles northerly of the Ontario International Airport. 251 250 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 143 According to Table 4.12-4, City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Performance Standards of the GPEIR, the maximum noise levels that are deemed “tolerable” in the GI (General Industrial) zone is 75 Ldn (exterior) and 65 Ldn (interior). Per pp. 4.12-26 and -27 of the GPEIR: “The City of Rancho Cucamonga is well outside the LA/Ontario International Airport’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, which is generally along Airport Drive at the northern boundary of the airport. With a distance of approximately one mile from the City’s southern boundary to the 65-dB CNEL, noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga are not expected to be exceeding the 55 to 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard for residential uses. Aircraft noise does not significantly impact the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Projected noise levels from airport operations show that in year 2030 the 65-dB CNEL noise contour would move to just south of the I-10 Freeway, with the 60-dB CNEL noise contour generally along Inland Empire Boulevard, or 0.5 mile from the City’s southern boundary.” The Project site is located northerly of the I-10 Freeway. Based on this information, the Project would not expose people working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 5.25 miles to the northwesterly of the Project site, in the City of Upland. Due to this distance, the Project would not expose people working in the Project area to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impacts would occur. 252 251 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 144 NOISE FIGURES 253 252 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 145 Figure 13-1 Noise Measurement Locations Source: Noise Study (Appendix G) 254 253 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 146 Figure 13-2 Mitigation and Design Feature Locations Source: Noise Study (Appendix G) 255 254 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 147 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Source(s): Google Maps. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X The Project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. Once constructed, the Project will have a limited number of employees. The Project would not Induce substantial unplanned population growth and create a demand for additional housing as a majority of the employees will likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. Any impacts would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X The Project site is currently vacant. There are no existing people or housing on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. 256 255 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 148 15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Source(s): City General Plan, Chapter 8, Public Health and Safety Element; City General Plan EIR, Section 4.14, Public Services, Exhibit 4.14-1 Public Facilities; Ordinance No. 865; Cucamonga School District-Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, February 16, 2018; Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code; and Google Earth. SUBSTANTIATION: 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fire protection? X The Project site is served by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). The closest station to the Project site is the San Bernardino Road Fire Station 172, located at 9612 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. This station is located approximately 1¼ mile north of the Project site. Fire Station 172 is staffed with a full-time, 24-hour constant staffing crew of a captain paramedic, engineer, and firefighter paramedic. They respond on a Type I engine and are capable of providing the full range of fire suppression, rescue, and advanced life support services. 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. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts. The RCFPD is a subsidiary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is funded through the ad- valorem tax assessment process included as a part of the property tax bill. The RCFPD maintains a strategic plan to ensure that public safety, one of the City’s core values, is maintained. In addition, 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. Impacts from implementation of the Project that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire services, would be considered incremental, and less than significant. 257 256 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 149 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Police protection? X The City of Rancho Cucamonga contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services. The closest station to the Project site is the Rancho Cucamonga Patrol Station located at 10510 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. This station is located approximately 1¼ mile northeast of the Project site. As part of the Project approval(s), standard conditions are assessed on the Project to reduce impacts from the Project to police/sheriff services. This is reflected in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 3 Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.64 Police Impact fee, and Ordinance No. 865. The Project applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 865 establishing Development Impact Fees for Community and Recreation Center, Library, Animal Center, Police, and Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fees. Furthermore, the Project must comply with Ordinance No. 865 to prevent any potential effects to sheriff services from rising to a level of significance. Ordinance No. 865 establishes the Police Impact Fee applicable to all projects to reduce incremental impacts to these services. This is a standard Condition of Approval and pursuant to CEQA, is not considered mitigation. Impacts from implementation of the Project that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the 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 sheriff services, would be considered incremental, and less than significant. 258 257 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 150 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Schools? X The Project site is located within the Cucamonga School District (CSD) boundary (Grade: K- 8) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD) boundary (Grade: 9-12). The closest schools to the Project site include 1) Cucamonga Elementary School located at 8677 Archibald Avenue (<½ mile north of Project site), and 2) Rancho Cucamonga Middle School located at 10022 Feron Boulevard (±¼ mile northeast of Project site). The Project proposes the development and construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area, plus associated parking and site improvements. No housing, which could potentially increase the demand for school services, is being proposed. However, due to indirect impacts upon school facilities, the Applicant would pay the applicable Commercial/Industrial Development (CID) School Fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. As set forth in the CSD, Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, dated February 26, 2018: “On January 24, 2018, the State Allocation Board ("SAB") increased the maximum CID School Fee authorized by Section 17620 of the Education Code from $0.56 to $0.61 per square foot for unified school districts. Pursuant to the School District's revenue sharing agreement with Chaffey Joint Union High School District ("CJUHSD"), the maximum the School District can receive from new CID is approximately 69 percent of the School Fees, or $0.42 per square foot of CID constructed within its boundaries. Justification of the CID School Fee is based on a comparison of net school facilities cost impacts with the School District's portion of the maximum commercial/industrial School Fee revenues per 1,000 square feet. The amounts the School District is justified in levying by category are listed below for reference: Retail and Services - $0.068 Office - $0.102 Research and Development - $0.088 Industrial/Warehouse/Manufacturing - $0.079 Hospital - $0.083 Hotel/Motel - $0.033 Self-Storage - $0.001” 259 258 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 151 Payment of the Developer Fee is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Impacts from implementation of the Project that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the 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 schools, would be considered incremental, and less than significant. 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Parks? X The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is Old Town Park located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Hermosa Avenue, approximately one-quarter (¼) mile northeast of the Project site. The Project site is zoned General Industrial and the Project proposes the construction of four (4) concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse buildings totaling approximately 240,710 square feet of building area. The Project does not include a recreation/park element. The Project does not include the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. This is reflected in Ordinance No. 865, approved on June 4, 2014, which amended the City’s Municipal Code to include Chapter 3.52 (Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee) and Chapter 3.68 (Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fees), among other public service development impact fees. It is noted, both Chapter 3.52 and Chapter 3.68 pertain exclusively to residential development projects. They are not applicable to the Project site’s proposed industrial warehouse use. The proposed industrial warehouse use does not create impacts to recreation/park facilities. No impacts would occur. 260 259 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 152 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Other public facilities? X The Project site consists of a vacant in-fill land parcel located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project’s industrial warehouse use will not substantially impact other public services, notably library services and animal center services which are principally attributed to residential development. This is reflected in Ordinance No. 865, approved on June 4, 2014, which amended the City’s Municipal Code to include Chapter 3.56 (Library Impact Fee) and Chapter 3.60 (Animal Center Impact Fee), among other public service development impact fees (including Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, and Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fees, previously discussed herein). It is noted, both Chapter 3.56 and Chapter 3.60 pertain exclusively to residential development projects. They are not applicable to the Project site’s proposed industrial warehouse use. The closest public library is the Archibald Library located at 7368 Archibald Avenue approximately two (2) miles north of the Project site; the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Adoption Center is located at 11780 Arrow Route approximately 2½ miles northwest of the Project site. No housing, which could potentially increase the demand for library services and animal services, is being proposed in conjunction with the Project. 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. Any impacts from implementation of the Project that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for library services and animal services, would be considered less than significant. 261 260 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 153 16. RECREATION. Source(s): Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.68 (Park In-Lie/Park Impact Fees); and Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.52 (Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee). SUBSTANTIATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The Project is industrial. Therefore, the Project would not 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. No impacts would occur. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The Project is industrial. Therefore, the Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts would occur. 262 261 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 154 17. TRANSPORTATION. Source(s): Scheu Business Center Update Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 9-18-2019 (TIS, Appendix H) Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the TIS, unless otherwise noted. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? X Pursuant to City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements, a traffic study was prepared for the Project (TIS, Appendix H). The purpose of the TIS is to evaluate the Project from a traffic circulation standpoint. The Project is projected to generate approximately 1,511 total Passenger Car Equivalence (PCE) trip-ends per day, with 213 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 192 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. The TIS objectives include the following: 1. Documentation of Existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; 2. Evaluation of traffic conditions in the Opening Year (2019) With and Without Project traffic conditions and With Project and Cumulative traffic conditions; 3. Evaluation of traffic conditions in Year 2040 conditions With and Without Project traffic conditions; and 4. Determination of on-site and off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve City of Rancho Cucamonga Level of Service requirements. Figure 17-1, Location Map illustrates the site location and TIS study area. Table 17-1, Study Area Intersections, shows the study area intersections: 263 262 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 155 Table 17-1 Study Area Intersections No. North-South Street East-West Street 1 Archibald Avenue Foothill Boulevard 2 Archibald Avenue Arrow Route 3 Archibald Avenue 9th Street 4 Archibald Avenue 8th Street 5 Archibald Avenue Acacia Street 6 Archibald Avenue 7th Street 7 Archibald Avenue 6th Street 8 Archibald Avenue 4th Street 9 Archibald Avenue East Inland Empire 10 Archibald Avenue I-10 Freeway Ramps Project Access Driveways 11 Project Access Driveway 1 Acacia Street 12 Project Access Driveway 2 Acacia Street 13 Project Access Driveway 3 7th Street 14 Project Access Driveway 4 7th Street 15 Project Access Driveway 5 7th Street 16 Project Access Driveway 6 7th Street Traffic Analysis Methodology The TIS follows the methodologies described by the Guidelines for Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis Reports in San Bernardino County, for the preparation of a traffic impact analysis. The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM defines Level of Service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. • Level of Service The definitions of Level of Service (LOS) for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the Level of Service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The LOS is determined in this study by using the HCM methodology. For signalized intersections, average control delay per vehicle is used to determine LOS. Levels of Service at signalized study intersections have been evaluated using the HCM intersection analysis program. LOS is defined in Table 17-2, LOS. 264 263 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 156 Table 17-2 LOS LOS Average Total Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Signalized Unsignalized A 0.00 - 10.00 0.00 - 10.00 B 10.01 - 20.00 10.01 - 15.00 C 20.01 - 35.00 15.01 - 25.00 D 35.01 - 55.00 25.01 - 35.00 E 55.01 - 80.00 35.01 - 50.00 F >80.01 >50.01 The LOS analysis for signalized intersections has been performed using optimized signal timing. A maximum cycle length of 130 seconds was used for the signalized intersections. A minimum green time of 10 seconds was used for each movement at all signalized intersections. Adjustment factors for elements such as lane width, trucks, grade, obstructions, parking or pedestrians are as stated in the HCM. The observed peak hour factor was used in the traffic analysis for existing and opening year conditions. A peak hour factor of 0.95 was used for Long Range Year conditions. Saturation flow rates of 1,800 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for through and right turn lanes and 1,700 vehicles for single left turn lanes, and 1,600 vehicles per lane for dual left turn lanes and 1,500 vehicles per lane for triple left turn lanes have been assumed for the existing and opening year conditions. Saturation flow rates of 1,900 vphg for through and right turn lanes and 1,800 vehicles for single left turn lanes, and 1,700 vehicles per lane for dual left turn lanes and 1,600 vehicles per lane for triple left turn lanes have been assumed for the Long Range Year conditions. • Performance Criteria The City of Rancho Cucamonga’s performance standard is described in the City’s General Plan Community Mobility Element. The Level of Service standard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is LOS D or better. Therefore, any study area intersections operating at LOS E or F will be considered deficient and require mitigation. However, the study area intersections of Archibald Avenue at East Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald Avenue at the Interstate 10 freeway ramps are under the jurisdiction of the City of Ontario. The Level of Service standard for the City of Ontario is LOS E or better. Therefore, these two intersections will be considered deficient and will require mitigation if they operate at LOS F. 265 264 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 157 Existing Level of Service Existing intersection Level of Service calculations are shown in Table 17-3, Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions, and are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga requires Level of Service D or better (Intersections 1-8). The City of Ontario requires Level of Service E or better (Intersections 9 & 10). 266 265 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 158 Table 17-3 Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 (Seconds) Level of Service Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Archibald (NS) / Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 35.6 50.1 D D 2 Archibald (NS) / Arrow Route (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 69.0 60.8 E E 3 Archibald (NS) / 9th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 54.8 30.5 D C 4 Archibald (NS) / 8th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 17.2 16.7 B B 5 Archibald (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 78.2 130.1 F F 6 Archibald (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 545.3 442.8 F F 7 Archibald (NS) / 6th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 23.1 37.2 C D 8 Archibald (NS) / 4th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 31.8 47.7 C D 9 Archibald (NS) / E. Inland Empire Blvd (EW) TS 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 28.9 37.5 C D 10 Archibald (NS) / I-10 Freeway Ramps (EW) TS 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 33.3 30.8 C C 11 Project Access Driveway 1 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Project Access Driveway 2 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 Project Access Driveway 3 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 Project Access Driveway 4 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 Project Access Driveway 5 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 Project Access Driveway 6 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the thru lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the thru movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Thru; R = Right; 1.0! = Shared Left/Thru/Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Deficiency; Italics = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Synchro, Version 10.0. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS= Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 267 266 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 159 All study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service during Existing peak hour conditions with the exception of the following study intersections: • Archibald Avenue / Arrow Route (both AM and PM peak hours); • Archibald Avenue / Acacia Street (both AM and PM peak hours); and • Archibald Avenue / 7th Street (both AM and PM peak hours). Public Transit Service OmniTrans currently serves the study area with regular bus service in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and surrounding areas. As shown on Figure 17-2, OmniTrans Routes, the following bus routes serve the Project site: • Bus Route 66 (Foothill Boulevard); • Bus Route 85 (Arrow Highway); • Bus Route 61 (Inland Empire Boulevard); and • Bus Route 290 (I-10 Freeway). Bicycle Plan Part of the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s General Plan Community Mobility Strategies is to provide a system of complete streets that accommodates safe and convenient access and travel for all users and to promote a healthy and sustainable transportation throughout the community. As part of the Community Mobility Strategy, the City of Rancho Cucamonga provides a system of bicycle paths and lanes. The City’s Bicycle Plan is shown on Figure 17-3, Bicycle Plan. The following bicycle facilities are located near the Project site: • Archibald Avenue – Class II (Bike Lane) • Foothill Boulevard – Class II (Bike Lane) • Arrow Highway – Class II (Bike Lane) • 6th Street – Class II (Bike Lane) • 4th Street – Class II (Bike Lane) Project Traffic Conditions • Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. The trip generation for the Project is based upon the specific land uses that have been planned for the development (240,060 square foot light industrial project). The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition 2017 was utilized to provide the trip generation rates for the proposed land uses. In addition, the Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study for Light Industrial Uses (August 2003) was used to determine the Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) for any truck trips generated by the Project. The trip generation rates in PCE’s are shown in Table 17-4, Trip Generation Rates. 268 267 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 160 Table 17-4 Trip Generation Rates Land Use Units1 Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out Total In Out Total Light Industrial TSF Trip Generation Rates2 PCE Inbound/Outbound Splits3 0.62 88% 0.08 12% 0.70 100% 0.08 13% 0.55 87% 0.63 100% 4.96 -- Passenger Car Equivalent Rates Calculations Passenger Cars Recommended Mix (%)4 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% PCE Factor5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 PCE Rates 0.484 0.066 0.550 0.064 0.431 0.495 3.899 2-Axle Trucks Recommended Mix (%)4 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% PCE Factor5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 PCE Rates 0.074 0.010 0.084 0.010 0.066 0.076 0.595 3-Axle Trucks Recommended Mix (%)4 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% PCE Factor5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PCE Rates 0.048 0.007 0.055 0.006 0.043 0.049 0.387 4-Axle Trucks Recommended Mix (%)4 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% PCE Factor5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PCE Rates 0.176 0.024 0.200 0.023 0.156 0.180 1.414 Final Rates (In Passenger Car Equivalents) Passenger Cars 0.484 0.066 0.550 0.064 0.431 0.495 3.899 2-Axle Trucks 0.074 0.010 0.084 0.010 0.066 0.076 0.595 3-Axle Trucks 0.048 0.007 0.055 0.006 0.043 0.049 0.387 4-Axle+ Trucks 0.176 0.024 0.200 0.023 0.156 0.180 1.414 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 Trip Generation Source: ITE Trip Generation, 10th Ed., 2017 3 Inbound/Outbound Splits per ITE Trip Generation, 10th Ed., 2017 4 Recommended Vehicle Mix Percentages per City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study for Light Industrial uses, August 2003 (Page 22) 5 Recommended PCE Factor per San Bernardino County CMP, 2016 Update The daily and peak-hour trip generation for the proposed development are shown in Table 17-5, Trip Generation (Passenger Car Equivalents). The Project is projected to generate approximately 1,511 total PCE trip-ends per day, with 213 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 192 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. 269 268 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 161 Table 17-5 Trip Generation (Passenger Car Equivalents) ITE TRIP GENERATION Land Use Quantity Units1 Weekday Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out Total In Out Total Light Industrial 240.060 TSF 148 20 168 20 132 152 1,191 ITE TRIP GENERATION IN PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS Vehicle Mix Weekday Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out Total In Out Total Passenger Cars 116 16 132 15 103 119 936 2-Axle Trucks 18 2 20 2 16 18 143 3-Axle Trucks 12 2 13 2 10 12 93 4-Axle+ Trucks 42 6 48 6 37 43 339 (In Passenger Car Equivalents) 188 26 213 25 167 192 1,511 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet • Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, employment, and recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses, and highways within the community. Trip distribution patterns for the TIS were based upon near-term conditions, based upon those highway facilities that are either in place or will be completed over the next few years, which represents the Opening Year occupancy for the Project. The trip distribution patterns for the Project are graphically depicted on Figure 17-4, Trip Distribution. The assignment of traffic from the Project site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the Project's trip generation, trip distribution, and proposed arterial highway and local street systems that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. • Modal Split Modal split denotes the proportion of traffic generated by a project that would use any of the transportation modes, namely buses, cars, bicycles, motorcycles, trains, carpools, etc. The traffic reducing potential of public transit and other modes is significant. However, the traffic projections used in the TIS were "conservative" in that public transit and alternative transportation may be able to reduce the traffic volumes. Thus, no modal split reduction was applied to the projections. With the implementation of transit service and provision of alternative transportation ideas and incentives, the automobile traffic demand can be reduced significantly. 270 269 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 162 Background Traffic • Background Traffic Growth Rate Based on conversations with City of Rancho Cucamonga staff, a one percent (1%) compound annual growth rate was identified to be representative of the area. Therefore, a two percent (2%) compound annual growth rate was applied to the Existing traffic volumes to develop the Opening Year (2019) Conditions ambient background traffic volumes. • Cumulative Projects Traffic Table 17-6, Cumulative Projects Trip Generation, lists the proposed land uses for the nearby cumulative projects, for Opening Year (2017) conditions, known by the City of Rancho Cucamonga at the time the TIS was prepared. Development projects that have been approved or are currently pending approval within a two-mile radius of the Project site are illustrated on Figure 17-5, Cumulative Projects Location Map. Table 17-6 shows the peak hour and daily vehicle trips generated by the cumulative projects being processed concurrently in the Project study area. It should be noted these volumes have been calculated to include the Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) for applicable land uses. 271 270 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 163 Table 17-6 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation ID No. Jurisdiction Case Number Land Use ITE Trip Code Quantity Units Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out Total In Out Total TAZ 1 6 Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT20080 Single Family Homes 210 20 DU 4 11 15 12 7 19 189 TAZ 2 5 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2018- 00023 Church 560 1,000 Seats 5 5 10 12 18 30 440 TAZ 3 12 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2018- 00257 Recreational Com. Center 495 9 TSF 10 5 15 10 11 21 259 TAZ 4 3 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2015- 00682 Gasoline/Service Station 944 8 FP 41 41 82 56 56 112 1,376 TAZ 5 1 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2017- 00141 General Light Industrial 110 48.16 TSF 37 4 41 4 34 38 304 TAZ 6 2 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2016- 00695 General Light Industrial 110 150 TSF 117 17 134 16 104 120 944 4 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2018- 00119 Warehousing 150 174.745 TSF 29 9 38 12 30 42 386 TAZ 6 Total 146 26 172 28 134 162 1,330 TAZ 7 8 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2018- 00326 Warehousing 150 55 TSF 10 3 13 3 10 13 122 9 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2016- 00670 General Light Industrial 110 230 TSF 179 25 204 23 160 183 1,448 10 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2017- 00402 General Light Industrial 110 300 TSF 234 32 266 31 209 240 1,889 TAZ 7 Total 423 60 483 57 379 436 3,459 TAZ 8 7 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2017- 00448 Warehousing 150 40 TSF 6 1 7 3 6 9 88 11 Rancho Cucamonga DRC2017-00654 Shopping Center Rate 820 14 TSF 8 5 13 26 28 54 529 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 207 DU 22 73 95 73 43 116 1,515 TAZ 8 Total 36 79 115 102 77 179 2,132 Total Cumulative Project Trip Generation 702 231 933 281 716 997 9,489 272 271 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 164 Traffic Analysis This section provides a discussion on the study intersection peak hour level of service analysis and findings. Opening Year (2019) Without Project Conditions LOS As shown on Table 17-7, Intersection Analysis for Opening Year 2019 Without Project Conditions, for Opening Year (2019) Without Project Conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the exception of the following study intersections which are forecast to continue to operate at a deficient LOS: • Archibald Avenue / Arrow Route (both AM and PM peak hours); • Archibald Avenue / 9th Street (AM peak hour only); • Archibald Avenue / Acacia Street (both AM and PM peak hours); and • Archibald Avenue / 7th Street (both AM and PM peak hours). 273 272 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 165 Table 17-7 Intersection Analysis for Opening Year 2019 Without Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 (Seconds) Level of Service Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Archibald (NS) / Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 37.3 52.5 D D 2 Archibald (NS) / Arrow Route (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 72.7 64.0 E E 3 Archibald (NS) / 9th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 57.3 31.0 E C 4 Archibald (NS) / 8th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 17.8 17.3 B B 5 Archibald (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 86.3 149.1 F F 6 Archibald (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 664.6 497.3 F F 7 Archibald (NS) / 6th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 23.7 39.0 C D 8 Archibald (NS) / 4th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 33.1 49.2 C D 9 Archibald (NS) / E. Inland Empire Blvd (EW) TS 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 30.0 39.3 C D 10 Archibald (NS) / I-10 Freeway Ramps (EW) TS 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 33.9 31.0 C C 11 Project Access Driveway 1 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Project Access Driveway 2 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 Project Access Driveway 3 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 Project Access Driveway 4 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 Project Access Driveway 5 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 Project Access Driveway 6 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the thru lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the thru movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Thru; R = Right; 1.0! = Shared Left/Thru/Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Deficiency; Italics = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Synchro, Version 10.0. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS= Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 274 273 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 166 Opening Year (2019) With Project Conditions LOS As shown on Table 17-8, Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2019) With Project, for Opening Year (2019) With Project Conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the exception of the following study intersections which are forecast to continue to operate at a deficient LOS: • Archibald Avenue / Arrow Route (both AM and PM peak hours); • Archibald Avenue / 9th Street (AM peak hour only); • Archibald Avenue / Acacia Street (both AM and PM peak hours); and • Archibald Avenue / 7th Street (both AM and PM peak hours). 275 274 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 167 Table 17-8 Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2019) With Project Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 (Seconds) Level of Service Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Archibald (NS) / Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 37.0 54.0 D D 2 Archibald (NS) / Arrow Route (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 78.1 67.0 F F 3 Archibald (NS) / 9th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 62.4 32.0 E C 4 Archibald (NS) / 8th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 18.8 17.7 B B 5 Archibald (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 122.1 262.0 F F 6 Archibald (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 750.2 2137.0 F F 7 Archibald (NS) / 6th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 25.5 38.8 C D 8 Archibald (NS) / 4th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 35.1 51.3 D D 9 Archibald (NS) / E. Inland Empire Blvd (EW) TS 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 30.1 39.5 C D 10 Archibald (NS) / I-10 Freeway Ramps (EW) TS 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 34.5 31.1 C C 11 Project Access Driveway 1 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CSS 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 8.9 8.9 A A 12 Project Access Driveway 2 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CSS 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 8.6 A A 13 Project Access Driveway 3 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 9.1 A A 14 Project Access Driveway 4 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 9.0 A A 15 Project Access Driveway 5 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 8.9 A A 16 Project Access Driveway 6 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A A 1 When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the thru lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the thru movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Thru; R = Right; 1.0! = Shared Left/Thru/Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Deficiency; Italics = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Synchro, Version 10.0. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS= Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 4 Mitigation includes modification of traffic signal phasing. 276 275 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 168 Based on the agency-established thresholds of significance, the above listed study intersections are forecast to be significantly impacted for Opening Year (2019) With Project Conditions. Mitigation will be required in order to reduce impacts for the Opening Year with Project Conditions to the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. Mitigation Measure MM-TR-1 shall be implemented. MM-TR-1 Intersection 2 – Archibald Ave / Arrow Route: Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Project Applicant shall implement the following: a. Restripe the eastbound Arrow Route approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane and one shared through/right- turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right- turn lane. b. Restripe the westbound Arrow Route approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane and one shared through/right- turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right- turn lane. c. Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the westbound Arrow Route approach. d. Change the westbound and eastbound left- turn signal phasing from protected to protected/permitted. The protected left-turn phase will utilize a green left-turn arrow. The permitted left-turn phase will utilize and be identified by flashing left-turn arrow. Based on various guidelines including guidelines set by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (OCTEC), the protected/permitted left-turn can be implemented since the intersection and approach meets the following criteria: • Left-turn lanes are limited to a single lane (no double or triple left-turn lanes); • Opposing through traffic has 2 or less lanes; • Speed limit does not exceed 45 miles per hour; and • Sight distance is adequate since no roadway curvature or obstacles affecting visibility for the left-turning vehicles are present. • Based on collision history information provided by the City from 2014 to end of 2018, the table below summarizes the number of reported collisions which would be attributed to the eastbound/westbound left-turn movement at the intersection: 277 276 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 169 Year Total Collisions Collisions Attributed to Eastbound/Westbound Left-Turn Movement 2014 5 0 2015 8 0 2016 5 0 2017 18 3 2018 12 0 With the incorporation of MM-TR-1, Project impacts to this intersection will below thresholds, and will be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, mitigation will be required in order to reduce impacts for the Opening Year with Project Conditions to the intersection of Archibald Avenue and 9th Street. Mitigation Measure MM-TR-2 shall be implemented. MM-TR-2 Intersection 3 – Archibald Ave / 9th Street: Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Project Applicant shall implement the following: a. Maintain the existing split signal phasing for the east/west movements and restripe the eastbound 9th Street approach from one left- turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane. b. Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the eastbound 9th Street approach. With the incorporation of MM-TR-2, Project impacts to this intersection will below thresholds, and will be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation will be required in order to reduce impacts for the Opening Year with Project Conditions to the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Acacia Street. Mitigation Measure MM-TR-3 shall be implemented. MM-TR-3 Intersection 4 – Archibald Ave / Acacia Street: The Project Applicant shall implement the following: • Install signage to restrict movements from Acacia Street onto Archibald Avenue to right- turns only during peak hours. This restriction might only be applicable to the westbound approach since the eastbound approach serves private property. Based on discussions with the City, considering the traffic volume for the eastbound approach and the proportional delay it adds to the overall intersection operation, it would be acceptable to 278 277 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 170 implement mitigation to only the East approach to relieve delay to all public approaches. With the incorporation of MM-TR-3, Project impacts to this intersection will below thresholds, and will be reduced to a less than significant level. Lastly, mitigation will be required in order to reduce impacts for the Opening Year with Project Conditions to the intersection of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street. Mitigation Measure MM-TR-4 shall be implemented. MM-TR-4 Intersection 5 – Archibald Ave / 7th Street: The Project Applicant shall implement the following: • Install signage to restrict movements from 7th Street onto Archibald Avenue to right-turns only during peak hours. With the incorporation of MM-TR-4, Project impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. Table 17-9, Intersection Analysis for Mitigated Opening Year With Project Conditions shows the level of service of the study intersections assuming implementation of the identified recommendation measures for Opening Year With Project Conditions. The level of service calculations reflect redistribution of the traffic volumes associated with restricting left and through movements at Archibald Avenue / Acacia Street and Archibald Avenue / 7th Street. 279 278 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 171 Table 17-9 Intersection Analysis for Mitigated Opening Year With Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 (Seconds) Level of Service Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Archibald (NS) / Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 37.0 54.0 D D 2 Archibald (NS) / Arrow Route (EW) - MITIGATED 4 TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1> 53.2 38.6 D D 3 Archibald (NS) / 9th Street (EW) - MITIGATED TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1> 0.0 1.0! 0.0 42.1 25.8 D C 4 Archibald (NS) / 8th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 20.8 19.8 C B 5 Archibald (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) - MITIGATED CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 15.7 16.2 C C 6 Archibald (NS) / 7th Street (EW) - MITIGATED CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 15.2 16.5 C C 7 Archibald (NS) / 6th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 26.4 38.8 C D 8 Archibald (NS) / 4th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 35.1 51.3 D D 9 Archibald (NS) / E. Inland Empire Blvd (EW) TS 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 30.1 39.5 C D 10 Archibald (NS) / I-10 Freeway Ramps (EW) TS 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 34.5 31.1 C C 11 Project Access Driveway 1 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CSS 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 8.9 8.9 A A 12 Project Access Driveway 2 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CSS 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 8.6 A A 13 Project Access Driveway 3 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 9.1 A A 14 Project Access Driveway 4 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 9.0 A A 15 Project Access Driveway 5 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 8.9 A A 16 Project Access Driveway 6 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A A 1 When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the thru lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the thru movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Thru; R = Right; 1.0! = Shared Left/Thru/Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Deficiency; Italics = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Synchro, Version 10.0. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS= Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 4 Mitigation includes modification of traffic signal phasing. 280 279 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 172 The Project will be required, as a condition of approval, to complete any remaining half- section street improvements for Acacia Street, Archibald Avenue and 7th Street, adjacent to the Project site. In addition, the Project will also be required, as a condition of approval, to pay the adopted transportation development fee prior to issuance of building permit. Payment of this fee is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. With the required Project frontage improvements, fair share contributions, payment of development impact fees and implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-TR-1 through MM-TR-4, Project impacts would be forecast to be reduced to less than significant. Long Range Year (2040) Without Project Conditions LOS Intersection Levels of Service for the Long Range Year (2040) Without Project Conditions are shown in Table 17-10, Intersection Analysis for Long Range Year (2040) Without Project Conditions. All HCM calculations for the Long Range Year are based on the existing intersection geometrics with the exception of the Archibald Avenue / Foothill Boulevard study intersection which assumes addition of dedicated right-turn lanes at all approaches for long-range conditions per the General Plan as directed by the City. As shown on Table 17-10, for Long Range Year (2040) Without Project Conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the exception of the following study intersections: • Archibald Avenue / Foothill Boulevard (PM peak hour only); • Archibald Avenue / Arrow Route (both AM and PM peak hours); • Archibald Avenue / 9th Street (AM peak hour only); • Archibald Avenue / Acacia Street (both AM and PM peak hours); and • Archibald Avenue / 7th Street (both AM and PM peak hours). 281 280 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 173 Table 17-10 Intersection Analysis for Long Range Year (2040) Without Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 (Seconds) Level of Service Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Archibald (NS) / Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 41.5 59.6 D E 2 Archibald (NS) / Arrow Route (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 70.1 81.8 E F 3 Archibald (NS) / 9th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 80.8 38.1 E D 4 Archibald (NS) / 8th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 20.3 20.7 C C 5 Archibald (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 179.4 302.4 F F 6 Archibald (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CSS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 2071.5 1244.7 F F 7 Archibald (NS) / 6th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 24.0 52.4 C D 8 Archibald (NS) / 4th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 38.0 52.8 D D 9 Archibald (NS) / E. Inland Empire Blvd (EW) TS 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 37.9 52.3 D D 10 Archibald (NS) / I-10 Freeway Ramps (EW) TS 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 47.2 32.0 D C 11 Project Access Driveway 1 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Project Access Driveway 2 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 Project Access Driveway 3 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 Project Access Driveway 4 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 Project Access Driveway 5 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 Project Access Driveway 6 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the thru lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the thru movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Thru; R = Right; 1.0! = Shared Left/Thru/Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Deficiency; Italics = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Synchro, Version 10.0. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS= Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 282 281 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 174 Long Range Year (2040) With Project Conditions LOS Intersection Levels of Service for the Long Range Year (2040) With Project are shown in Table 17-11, Intersection Analysis for Long Range Year (2040) With Project Conditions. All HCM calculations for Long Range Year (2040) are based on the existing intersection geometrics with the exception of the Archibald Avenue / Foothill Boulevard study intersection which assumes addition of dedicated right-turn lanes at all approaches for long-range conditions per the General Plan as directed by the City. As shown on Table 17-11, for Long Range Year (2040) With Project Conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the exception of the following study intersections: • Archibald Avenue / Foothill Boulevard (PM peak hour only); • Archibald Avenue / Arrow Route (both AM and PM peak hours); • Archibald Avenue / 9th Street (AM peak hour only); • Archibald Avenue / Acacia Street (both AM and PM peak hours); and • Archibald Avenue / 7th Street (both AM and PM peak hours). 283 282 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 175 Table 17-11 Intersection Analysis for Long Range Year (2040) With Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Delay2 (Seconds) Level of Service Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Archibald (NS) / Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 41.9 61.2 D E 2 Archibald (NS) / Arrow Route (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 74.1 82.5 E F 3 Archibald (NS) / 9th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 84.4 39.2 F D 4 Archibald (NS) / 8th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 21.5 21.6 C C 5 Archibald (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CS S 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.0! 0.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 275.8 686.8 F F 6 Archibald (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CS S 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0! 0.0 2561.4 4048.1 F F 7 Archibald (NS) / 6th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 25.4 52.6 C D 8 Archibald (NS) / 4th Street (EW) TS 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 40.8 54.7 D D 9 Archibald (NS) / E. Inland Empire Blvd (EW) TS 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 38.1 52.8 D D 10 Archibald (NS) / I-10 Freeway Ramps (EW) TS 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 54.1 32.0 D C 11 Project Access Driveway 1 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CS S 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 8.9 9.0 A A 12 Project Access Driveway 2 (NS) / Acacia Street (EW) CS S 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 8.6 A A 13 Project Access Driveway 3 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CS S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 9.2 A A 14 Project Access Driveway 4 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CS S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 9.0 A A 15 Project Access Driveway 5 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CS S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8.4 8.9 A A 16 Project Access Driveway 6 (NS) / 7th Street (EW) CS S 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A A 1 When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the thru lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the thru movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Thru; R = Right; 1.0! = Shared Left/Thru/Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Deficiency; Italics = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Synchro, Version 10.0. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS= Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 4 Mitigation includes modification of traffic signal phasing. 284 283 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 177 Based on the agency-established thresholds of significance, the above listed study intersections are forecast to be significantly impacted for Long Range Year (2040) With Project Conditions. Additional mitigation is required beyond the improvements discussed in the Opening Year (2019) Project conditions to the following intersections: • Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; and • Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. With the incorporation of MM-TR-5 and MM-TR-6, Project impacts to these intersections will be reduced to a less than significant level. MM-TR-5 Intersection 1 – Archibald Ave / Foothill Blvd: The Project Applicant shall make a fair share contribution to implement the following: • Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the eastbound Foothill Boulevard approach. • Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the westbound Foothill Boulevard approach. MM-TR-6 Intersection 2 – Archibald Ave / Arrow Route: The Project Applicant shall make a fair share contribution to implement the following: • Restripe the northbound Archibald Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one defacto right turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one dedicated right-turn lane. • Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the northbound Archibald Avenue approach. • Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the eastbound Arrow Route approach. No additional mitigation is required beyond the improvements discussed in the Opening Year (2019) Project conditions to the following intersections: • Archibald Avenue / 9th Street (AM peak hour only); • Archibald Avenue / Acacia Street (both AM and PM peak hours); • Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route; and • Archibald Avenue / 7th Street (both AM and PM peak hours). Lastly, the Project will be required to participate in the funding (on a fair share basis) to the following intersections: • Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; and • Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. 285 284 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 178 This is reflected in Table 17-12, Project Fair-Share Intersection Contribution (Long Range Year 2040), and is included in Mitigation Measure MM-TR-7. 286 285 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 177 Table 17-12 Project Fair-Share Intersection Contribution (Long Range Year 2040) Intersection Existing Traffic Project Long Range Year (2040) With Project Traffic Growth in Traffic Project Traffic Project % of Long Range Year (2040) With Project Growth in Traffic Estimated Cost of Mitigation Project Share of Estimated Cost AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Archibald (NS) / Foothill Blvd (EW) 3,773 4,382 4,716 5,343 943 961 42 38 4.5% 4.0% $40,000 $1,782 $1,582 2 Archibald (NS) / Arrow Route (EW) 3,923 4,312 4,685 5,115 762 803 75 67 9.8% 8.3% $40,000 $3,937 $3,337 287 286 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 177 MM-TR-7 Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Project applicant shall participate in the funding (on a fair share basis, as shown in Table 17-10 of the Initial Study) to the following intersections for the Long Range Year (2040) Condition: • Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; and • Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. With the incorporation of MM-TR-7, Project impacts to these intersections will be reduced to a less than significant level. As shown on Figure 17-2, Omnitrans Routes, the following bus routes serve the Project site: • Bus Route 66 (Foothill Boulevard); • Bus Route 85 (Arrow Highway); • Bus Route 61 (Inland Empire Boulevard); and • Bus Route 290 (I-10 Freeway). The City’s Bicycle Plan is shown on Figure 17-3, Bicycle Plan. The following bicycle facilities are located near the Project site: • Archibald Avenue – Class II (Bike Lane) • Foothill Boulevard – Class II (Bike Lane) • Arrow Highway – Class II (Bike Lane) • 6th Street – Class II (Bike Lane) The Project will also be served by sidewalks. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Project impacts would be forecast to be reduced to a less than significant level. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X In the fall of 2013, Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. For some parts of California (and eventually the entire state), this legislation will change the way that transportation studies are conducted for environmental documents. In the areas where SB 743 is implemented, delay-based metrics such as roadway capacity and level of service will no longer be the performance measures used for the determination of the transportation impacts of projects in studies conducted under CEQA. Instead, new performance measures such as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will be used. 288 287 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 178 During the preparation of the traffic impact study, guidelines for the implementation of SB 743 were not yet incorporated into CEQA. Therefore, the TIS followed current practice regarding state and local guidance as of the date of preparation. In December 2018, CEQA Guidelines were updated to include a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts using the VMT methodology. This new methodology is required to be used statewide for projects beginning in or after July 2020 unless the lead agency adopts the VMT thresholds earlier. As such, and because the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as the lead agency has not yet adopted VMT thresholds, the analysis for this Project utilizes the LOS methodology. Notwithstanding, for purposes of full disclosure, it is estimated that the Project would generate approximately 4,069,972 annual VMT per capita, based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) v2016.3.2. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X The Project site and surrounding properties are within the GI Zone. To the north, south, and west are smaller parcels housing freestanding, one-story structures. The parcel to the east is larger, also with a freestanding, one-story structure. Surrounding structures are industrial in nature. 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 would, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards because of a geometric design feature. Any impacts would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X Construction of the Project may temporarily affect the operation of the immediate circulation network during the construction phase of the Project. The Project will be required to obtain an encroachment permit prior to commencing any construction within the public right-of-way. This will also include the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP) which is designed to mitigate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Lastly, any impacts will be short-term and will cease once the construction phase is completed. The Project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles during operations. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Any impacts would be less than significant. 289 288 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 179 TRANSPORTATION FIGURES 290 289 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 180 Figure 17-1 Location Map 291 290 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 181 Figure 17-2 OmniTrans Routes Source: OmniTrans http://omnitrans.org/schedules/pdf/system-map/Omnitrans%20%20System%20Map%20- %20January%202019.pdf Approximate site location. 292 291 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 182 Figure 17-3 Bicycle Plan 293 292 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 183 Figure 17-4 Trip Distribution 294 293 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 184 Figure 17-5 Cumulative Projects Location Map 295 294 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 185 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Source(s): Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the 13.23 Scheu Business Center Project Site (APN 209-211-024) Located Immediately Northeast of the Intersection of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, prepared by Archaeological Associates, dated January, 2019 (Cultural Assessment, Appendix D1); and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) Formal Notification, prepared by City of Rancho Cucamonga, June 11, 2019 (City AB52 Letters, Appendix D3). SUBSTANTIATION: 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 Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a.i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) X As defined in Public Resources Code 21074 and applying the criteria located in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), the Project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). The results of the records search and field study were negative for the presence of prehistoric and historic resources within the Project area. Therefore, no further work in conjunction with prehistoric or historic resources is warranted or recommended including monitoring of earth disturbing activities connected with future develop. The City received responses concerning the Project from both the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (GBMI-KN) and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources Departments. Based on the responses to consultation with these Tribes, Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 and MM-TCR-2, shall be implemented. There is the potential for presence of subsurface tribal cultural resources on the site, and they could be affected by Project-related, ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and construction at the Project site (depending on the depth of excavation activities). It is possible that subsurface disturbance may uncover undiscovered tribal cultural resources at the site. Impacts to tribal cultural resources are potentially significant. To provide the GBMI-KN with the ability to protect and preserve their tribal cultural resources, and to reduce potential impacts to such resources (if encountered), mitigation is required. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-TCR-1 (which is based on input the City received from the GBMI-KN during the consultation efforts), impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a level of less than significant. 296 295 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 186 Additionally, to provide the SMBMI with the ability to protect and preserve their tribal cultural resources and to reduce potential impacts to such resources (if encountered), mitigation is required. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-TCR-2 (which is based on input the City received from the SMBMI during the consultation efforts), impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM-TCR-1 The Project applicant shall retain and compensate for the services of a qualified professional tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) Tribal Government and is listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s tribal contact list for the area of the Project site. The tribal monitor/consultant shall only be present onsite during the construction phases that involve ground- disturbing activities, which are defined by the Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The tribal monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall cease when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the tribal representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. Proof of the Project applicant’s retention of the tribal monitor/consultant shall be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department prior to the issuance of permits for construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. In addition, the Project applicant shall follow/implement the following measures during the Project’s construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities: • Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant: The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC’s Tribal Contact list for the area of the Project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site 297 296 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 187 grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. • Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources, and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. • Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or 298 297 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 188 she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. • Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discovery, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant will immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). • Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the following treatment measures shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. o Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the Project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated 299 298 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 189 carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. o Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects will be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. MM-TCR-2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall follow/implement the following measures during the Project’s construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities: 1. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find 300 299 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 190 (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within item #4, below, regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. 2. If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within item #4, below. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly. 3. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project. 4. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in item #1, above, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site. 5. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead 301 300 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 191 Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the Project. No other responses from the Native American community for implementation of mitigation measures were received. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 and MM-TCR-2, the Project would not 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 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). Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 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 Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a.ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? X In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, a Cultural Resources Assessment was performed on the Project site. The results of the records search and field study were negative for the presence of prehistoric and historic resources within the Project area. Therefore, no further work in conjunction with prehistoric or historic resources is warranted or recommended including monitoring of earth disturbing activities connected with future develop. No mitigation was required. As discussed in Section 5.d of this Initial Study, Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the unlikely event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. As required by Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the City submitted notifications to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the San Manual Band of Mission Indians, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians following a completeness determination for Design Review DRC2018-00529 and DRC2018-00530. The notices were mailed on June 11, 2019 and provided for a 30-day comment period ending on July 11, 2019. Responses were received from three (3) tribes: the Morongo Band of Mission 302 301 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 192 Indians, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI), and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (GBMI-KN). The Morongo Band of Mission Indians had no comments on the Project. The SMBMI did not request consultation but did request that specific mitigation measures be incorporated into the Initial Study. The GBMI-KN requested consultation and also provided specific mitigation measures be incorporated into the Initial Study. All correspondence relating to AB52 is provided as a part of the Initial Study Technical Appendices (Appendix D3). Applicable mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 and MM-TCR-2, are a result of the mitigation measures received by both Tribes and are included above in Section 18.a. Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation History of the Project Area The City received an email from the GBMI-KN acknowledging that face to face consultation was not possible at this time and provided historical information on the Project site to also be included in this Initial Study; the history is provided below. “The Scheu Distribution Center_1938 map indicates the project location within the Village of Cucamonga, which is the namesake of the current city of Rancho Cucamonga. All of our mainland villages (sans our island villages) overlapped each other to help facilitate the movement of tribal cultural resources throughout the landscape and also to our sister tribes outside of our traditional ancestral territory. Village use areas were usually shared between village areas and were commonly used by two or more adjoining villages depending on the type, quantity, quality, and availability of natural resources in the area. This village was a large and prominent village because of its location connected to the major trade corridor that would lead to the Mojave Desert, today called the cajon pass. Therefore, human activity was pronounced within these use areas due to the combined use by multiple villages and therefore TCR’s may be present in the soil layers from the thousands of years of human activity within that landscape. The Scheu Distribution Center_1901 and Scheu Distribution Center_1897 maps show the project's close proximity to a major railroad corridor that existed in this location. All railroads were placed on top of our Tribe's traditional trade routes because when the first railroad planners came out west, the topography was too varied to place the rail lines just anyplace, so they chose the paths of least resistance that already existed which were our traditional trade routes that were flattened by human travel over thousands of years of use. Therefore, railroad corridors help to identify the specific geographic area of our ancient trade routes. This project is within this travel/trade corridor. The Scheu Distribution Center_1938 map shows these same trade routes around the project area. Trade routes were heavily used by our Tribe for movement of trade items, visiting of family, going to ceremony, accessing recreation areas, and accessing foraging areas. Within and around these routes contained seasonal or permanent ramadas or trade depots, seasonal and permanent habitation areas, and often still contain isolated burials and cremations from folks who died along the trail. These isolated burials are not associated with a village community burial site or ceremonial burial site, rather the location is simply where the person died and 303 302 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 193 was buried where they died. Therefore, isolated burials are more concentrated and likely to occur in proximity to our trade routes, especially the major trade routes. Trade routes are considered “cultural landscapes”, as stated in section 21074. (a) because the landscapes will house the objects, therefore, both cultural landscapes and cultural objects are protected under AB52 as a tribal cultural resource. The Scheu Distribution Center hydrography map indicates the hydrography or waterways that exist around the project area most notably the closest being two perennial watercourses named today as Cucamonga Creek to the west and Deer Creek to the east. All water sources were used by our Tribe for life sustenance. Along these watercourses and water bodies occurred seasonal or permanent hamlets, seasonal or permanent trade depots, ceremonial and religious prayer sites, and burials and cremation sites of our ancestors. These activities occurred around water, both inland and coastal, because these water areas create unique habitats and riparian corridors that provide an abundance of food and medicine resources along with aesthetically peaceful areas with running water, shade trees, and shelter. The project location is also at the crossroads of a trade route and two main waterways which creates a land area that was heavily used because it was the bottleneck area for crossing over the waterways. Crossings over waterways did not just occur anywhere, therefore, the locations of the crossings were significant for human travel and use. Permanent waterways (which these two creeks contained water for most or all of the year) were also high attractants for human activity and the banks and shores of these waterways have a higher than average potential for encountering Tribal Cultural Resources of artifacts and human remains during ground disturbing activities. Waterways are a “cultural landscape”, as stated in section 21074. (a) and are protected under AB52 as a tribal cultural resource. Due to the project site being located within and around a sacred village (cucamonga), surrounded by sacred water courses (Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek), and major traditional trade routes, there is a high potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources still present within the soil from the thousands of years of prehistoric activities that occurred within and around these Tribal Cultural landscapes. Therefore, in lieu of an in-person consultation, we are providing document information from our tribal archives and a written explanation of our concerns for impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCR's) and how the project may impact TCR's due to the project’s location and the proposed ground disturbing activities for your use in the project’s IS/MND.” With the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 and MM-TCR-2, the Project would not 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 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. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 304 303 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 194 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Source(s): Project Application Materials (Appendix J); Preliminary Drainage Study, Scheu Industrial Park, prepared by Encompass Associates, Inc., March 22, 2018 (Drainage Study, Appendix F); Scheu Business Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., 4-23-2019 (AQ/GHG Analysis, Appendix B); Cucamonga Valley Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Civiltec Engineering, Inc., June 2016; City General Plan, Chapter 7, Public Facilities and Infrastructure; and City General Plan EIR, Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems. SUBSTANTIATION: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? X Water Potable domestic water supply to the Project is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). There is an existing 18” water line in 7th Street, which will provide fire, domestic and landscape services for Parcels/Buildings 1, 2 & 4 and, a 6” water line in Acacia Street which will provide domestic and landscape service for Parcel/Building 3 and is currently servicing the site. Fire service for Parcel/Building 3 may be directly off the existing 6” Acacia Street line or may be looped on site to connect the 7th Street and Acacia Street lines if direct flow is inadequate. CVWD is a special district created as a separate entity from the City, and with the sole purpose of providing high-quality, safe, and reliable water services. In addition to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the CVWD serves portions of the cities of Upland, Ontario, and Fontana, and some unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. In total, CVWD has approximately 49,600 water connections and serves a population of approximately 186,000 within a 47 square-mile area. CVWD’s water distribution system is comprised of approximately 690 miles of distribution mains, 22 pump stations, and 39 pressure-reducing valve stations. The CVWD has 34 water storage facilities that vary in size from 13 to 16 million gallons, with a combined design storage capacity of 89.6 million gallons. Seven storage facilities are located in the higher elevations above 2,267 feet. The CVWD continues to refine and improve its water system maintenance and operation procedures to ensure reliability. Its maintenance practices help reduce water loss from 305 304 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 195 leaks in the distribution system, which contributes to the amount of available potable water in the City. According to Table 16, of the AQ/GHG Analysis, the Project will use a total of 61,065,263 gallons of water per year (187.40 acre feet per year). This equates to 0.28% of the 67,500 acre feet of water available from CVWD. Consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use designation of LI, the existing CVWD water service infrastructure, inclusive of the distribution system and treatment facilities, is capable of serving the Project; construction or expansion of existing facilities is not necessary to serve the Project. Wastewater The Project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has wastewater treated by the IEUA at the RP-1 and RP-4 treatment plants. Both the RP-1 and RP-4 have sufficient additional capacity to serve the build-out of the City of Rancho Cucamonga pursuant to the Land Use designations set forth in the current General Plan, inclusive of the Project site. The existing CVWD wastewater service infrastructure, inclusive of the distribution system and treatment facilities, is capable of serving the Project; construction or expansion of existing facilities is not necessary to serve the Project. There is an existing 8” sewer line in 7th Street currently terminating approximately 200’ east of Archibald Avenue, which can be extended east and on site to service all 4 parcels/buildings within the Project. Connections to local water and sewer mains will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that will occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. No additional improvements are needed to either sewer lines or treatment facilities to serve the Project. Standard water and sewer connection fees will address any incremental impacts of the Project. The applicant will pay water system capacity charges and water meter charges to CVWD for domestic and landscape irrigation use; and sewer system capital capacity charges and sewer connection fees to the City and IEUA, based on Industrial User Equivalent Dwelling Unit formula and water meter sizes. These fees are projected to total approximately $1.00 per sq. ft. of building. Payment of these fees are standard conditions and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Storm Water Drainage A site specific preliminary drainage study (Drainage Study, Appendix F) has been prepared to determine the drainage facility requirements for the Project site identified as being located south of Acacia Street, west of industrial businesses, north of 7th Street, and east of Archibald Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California. The Project site will consist of 4 warehouse buildings, with an approximate area of 16 acres. Proposed drainage is overland and by sheet flow generally in a southwesterly direction. The Project site is not subject to off-site runoff. The Project site is tributary to an existing storm drain in Archibald Avenue. A storm drain in 7th Street will be constructed to collect runoff from multiple on-site subareas. 306 305 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 196 Project site runoff and the extension of the storm drain in 7th Street have been designed to convey flows from a 100-year storm event. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 19.20.230 all construction projects shall apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be contained in the Project applicant’s submitted Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Project will also be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying post-construction BMPs. These are standard conditions and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and BMP’s. Based on the above, development of the Project site would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities or, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Electric Power There is no electricity connection currently serving the Project site in its vacant and undeveloped condition. The electrical service provider for the Project site and the greater City is Southern California Edison (SCE). Overhead electrical service lines are currently in place adjacent to the Project site along the east side of Archibald Avenue. SCE is responsible for providing power supply to the City of Menifee and the greater Riverside County area while complying with county, state, and federal regulations. SCE’s power system is one of the nation’s largest electric and gas utilities and serves approximately 15 million people in 180 incorporated cities and 15 counties, in a service area of approximately 50,000 square miles in size (SCE 2019). SCE maintains 12,635 miles of transmission lines, 91,375 miles of distribution lines, 1,433,336 electric poles, 720,800 distribution transformers, and 2,959 substation transformers. In 2017, SCE’s power mix consisted of 32 percent renewable resources, including wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydro, 20 percent natural gas, eight percent large hydroelectric facilities, and six percent nuclear. An estimated 34 percent of SCE’s power mix consisted of unspecified sources of power in 2017, which is referred to by SCE as electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources. Operation of the Project would consume electricity for building power, lighting, and water conveyance, among other operational requirements. The Project has been designed to comply with various federal, state and local energy use regulations including Title 24. Because the Project has been designed to meet all applicable local and state requirements and represents an incremental and relatively nominal increase in area wide electrical 307 306 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 197 consumption, the Project would not result in potentially significant environmental effects from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Adequate commercial electricity supplies are presently available in Southern California to meet the incremental increase in demand attributed to the Project. The Project would not require new or expanded electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. Natural Gas There is no natural gas connection currently in place serving the Project site in its vacant and undeveloped condition. The natural gas provider for the Project site and the greater City is the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), also known as The Gas Company. The Project will be connected to The Gas Company’s natural gas distribution system. Connections are available in the vicinity and natural gas service is in place in Archibald Avenue. Adequate natural gas supplies are available to meet the incremental increase in demand attributed to the Project. The Project will not require new or expanded natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts will be less than significant. Telecommunications Telephone service to the Project site and the greater City is provided by Verizon and AT&T. Verizon and AT&T are private companies that provides connection to the communication system on an as needed basis. No expansion of facilities will be necessary to connect the Project to the communication system located adjacent to the Project site. The Project would not require new or expanded telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts would be less than significant. Impacts from implementation of the Project are considered incremental and will be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? X As set forth in Section 19.a, potable domestic water supply to the Project is provided by the CVWD. There is an existing 18” water line in 7th Street, which will provide fire, domestic and landscape services for Parcels/Buildings 1, 2 & 4 and, a 6” water line in Acacia Street which will provide domestic and landscape service for Parcel/Building 3 and is currently servicing the site. Fire service for Parcel/Building 3 may be directly off the existing 6” Acacia Street 308 307 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 198 line or may be looped on site to connect the 7th Street and Acacia Street lines if direct flow is inadequate. Imported water is the District’s most significant water supply and can range approximately 35-65 percent of the District’s water. Sufficient connection capacity exists to meet current and future imported water demands. The District produces groundwater from the two groundwater basins that underlie the District service area: Chino Basin and Cucamonga Basin. In addition to imported water and groundwater, the District has rights to six sources of surface water from the canyons: Cucamonga Canyon, Day/East Canyon, Deer Canyon, Lytle Creek, Smith Canyon Group, and the Golf Course Tunnel. Currently, water is only utilized from three of the six sources: Cucamonga Canyon, Day/East Canyon, and Deer Canyon. Based on figures set forth in the CVWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, CVWD has sufficient water supply to meet current and projected future water demand under normal year, single-dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios, as depicted in Table 19-1, Normal Year Supply (AFY), Table 19-2, Single Dry Year Supply (AFY), and Table 19-3, Multiple Dry Year Supply (AFY). Table 19-1 Normal Year Supply (AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 Supply 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Demand 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Difference 0 0 0 0 Source: CVWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Table 19-2 Single Dry Year Supply (AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 Supply 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Demand 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Difference 0 0 0 0 Source: CVWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 309 308 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 199 Table 19-3 Multiple Dry Year Supply (AFY) Year Item 2020 2025 2030 2035 1 Supply 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Demand 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Difference 0 0 0 0 2 Supply 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Demand 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Difference 0 0 0 0 3 Supply 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Demand 60,500 63,100 65,700 65,700 Difference 0 0 0 0 Source: CVWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan In conclusion, there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Any impacts would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X Please reference the discussion in 19.a. The Project would not 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. Impacts would be considered incremental and less than significant. 310 309 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 200 Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? X Solid waste collection and transport in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is handled by contracted private firms that haul collected materials to regional landfills and materials recycling facilities. The City currently has a contract with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. (Burrtec) to provide these solid waste services. In July 2001, the County of San Bernardino contracted Burrtec to operate and maintain their solid waste disposal facilities located throughout the County. This includes both active and closed landfills, transfer stations and community collection centers. Solid waste generated in the City is transferred to Burrtec’s West Valley Materials Recovery Facility, located immediately southeast of the City at 13373 Napa Street in Fontana. Solid waste that is not diverted is primarily disposed at Mid-Valley Landfill, a County Class III (i.e., municipal waste) landfill located at 2390 North Alder Avenue in Rialto. The Project site is located approximately ten (10) miles southwest of the Mid-Valley Landfill. According to the City’s 2010 GPEIR, the Mid-Valley Landfill has a daily permitted capacity of 7,500 tons per day (tons/day), a remaining capacity of 670,000 cubic yards (cy), and an anticipated close date of 2033. According to Table 16 of the AQ/GHG Analysis, the Project will generate 297.67 tons of solid waste per year. Based on the above, development of the Project site as an industrial warehouse business center, consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use designation of LI, would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant. Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X In order to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in California, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) was created in 1989 to oversee the reporting of solid waste disposal by cities and counties. The CIWMB required that the amount of solid waste sent to landfills be reduced by 50 percent by the year 2000, per Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939). 311 310 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 201 Rancho Cucamonga implemented a series of programs for recycling materials that significantly decreased the amount of waste the City sent to landfills. In 2000, Rancho Cucamonga was diverting 35 percent of its waste from landfills. By 2006, Rancho Cucamonga diverted 57 percent of its waste from landfills through recycling and re-use. In 2008, the California State Senate passed Senate Bill 1016 (SB 1016) that builds upon AB 939. Instead of looking at diversion rates for cities and counties, the new law requires jurisdictions to report waste generation factors based on disposal weight, as reported by disposal facilities, and reported population and employment data. Regarding solid waste regulations, the City has exceeded the 50 percent diversion rate mandated by AB939 with a 57 percent diversion rate. In addition, the City is currently meeting its target per capita disposal rates under SB 1016. The General Plan Update’s Goal PF-7 and Policies PF-7.1 through PF-7.5 state the City’s aim to minimize the volume of solid waste that enters regional landfills and encourage recycling. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has achieved and exceeded the target numbers identified by CIWMB in SB 1016 and continues to improve existing programs, as well as develop and implement new programs to minimize waste generation and increase recycling. Therefore, with continuing adherence to the requirements of AB 939 and SB 1016 and implementation of the identified goal and related policies in the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, the City would maintain compliance with applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Based on the above, this Project, as a part of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, would comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant. 312 311 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 202 20. WILDFIRE. Source(s): City General Plan EIR, Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Industrial/Warehouse Building, NEC Archibald Avenue & Seventh Street, prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 30, 2013 (Geo Investigation, Appendix E1); and Geotechnical Update (Letter) – Proposed Industrial/Warehouse Building, NEC Archibald Avenue & Seventh Street, prepared by Sladden Engineering, September 10, 2018 (Geo Update, Appendix E2) SUBSTANTIATION: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X Archibald Avenue and 7th Street in an industrial neighborhood approximately 1½ mile north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. According to the Wildland Fire Background Report prepared for the City’s 2010 General Plan Update, wildland fires pose a major risk to mountainous and hillside Southern California communities. A wildfire that consumes hundreds to thousands of acres of vegetated property can overwhelm local emergency response resources. Therefore, planning, preparedness, and education are required to reduce the potential for fire hazards and to limit the devastation caused by fires. The northern portions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its 11-square mile sphere- of-influence (SOI) at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest are susceptible to these wildland hazardous fire conditions given the hilly terrain and dried vegetation. The Project site and surrounding vicinity in the southern portion of the City is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is served by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). The closest station to the Project site is the San Bernardino Road Fire Station 172, located at 9612 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. This station is located approximately 1¼ mile north of the Project site. Fire Station 172 is staffed with a full-time, 24-hour constant staffing crew of a captain paramedic, engineer, and firefighter paramedic. They respond on a Type I engine and are capable of providing the full range of fire suppression, rescue, and advanced life support services. A limited potential exists to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. Construction work in the street associated with the Project will be limited to lateral utility connections (i.e., sewer) that will be limited to nominal potential traffic diversion. Control of access will ensure emergency access to the site and Project area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP The TCP is designed to mitigate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a 313 312 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 203 standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access to the Project site and area will remain as was prior to the Project. All Project elements, including landscaping, will be sited with sufficient clearance from the proposed buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the site. The Project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. Any impacts would be considered less than significant. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? X According to the Wildland Fire Background Report prepared for the City’s 2010 General Plan Update, wildland fires pose a major risk to mountainous and hillside Southern California communities. A wildfire that consumes hundreds to thousands of acres of vegetated property can overwhelm local emergency response resources. Therefore, planning, preparedness, and education are required to reduce the potential for fire hazards and to limit the devastation caused by fires. The northern portions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its 11-square mile sphere- of-influence (SOI) at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest are susceptible to these wildland hazardous fire conditions given the hilly terrain and dried vegetation. The Project site and surrounding vicinity in the southern portion of the City is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is relatively level with minimal surface gradients. According to the USGS 7.5' Guasti Quadrangle map (1981), the site is at an approximate elevation of 1,095 feet AMSL. Based on this information, the Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impacts would occur. 314 313 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 204 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? X According to the Wildland Fire Background Report prepared for the City’s 2010 General Plan Update, wildland fires pose a major risk to mountainous and hillside Southern California communities. A wildfire that consumes hundreds to thousands of acres of vegetated property can overwhelm local emergency response resources. Therefore, planning, preparedness, and education are required to reduce the potential for fire hazards and to limit the devastation caused by fires. The northern portions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its 11-square mile sphere- of-influence (SOI) at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest are susceptible to these wildland hazardous fire conditions given the hilly terrain and dried vegetation. The Project site and surrounding vicinity in the southern portion of the City is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project does not include and or require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Any roads and utilities will be installed in accordance with the respective jurisdiction requirements. No impacts would occur. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X According to the Wildland Fire Background Report prepared for the City’s 2010 General Plan Update, wildland fires pose a major risk to mountainous and hillside Southern California communities. A wildfire that consumes hundreds to thousands of acres of vegetated property can overwhelm local emergency response resources. Therefore, planning, preparedness, and education are required to reduce the potential for fire hazards and to limit the devastation caused by fires. The northern portions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its 11-square mile sphere- of-influence (SOI) at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest are susceptible to these wildland hazardous fire conditions given the hilly terrain and dried vegetation. 315 314 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 205 The Project site and surrounding vicinity in the southern portion of the City is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is relatively level with minimal surface gradients. According to the USGS 7.5' Guasti Quadrangle map (1981), the site is at an approximate elevation of 1,095 feet AMSL. Based on this information, the Project would not, expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impacts would occur. 316 315 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 206 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. SUBSTANTIATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X The Project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development would 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. The contribution of the Project to cumulative biological impacts is not expected to be cumulatively considerable as the Project site is within an urban area, is relatively small, and is isolated from areas of better habitat and is fully developed with an existing service station. No cultural resources are known to exist on the site. No mitigation is required. here is potential for tribal cultural resources and paleontological resources to be discovered during construction; therefore, mitigation measures are included to ensure proper handling and protection. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? X The 2010 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program Final Environmental Impact Report, 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 317 316 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 207 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)). As demonstrated in Sections 1 - 20 of this Initial Study, the Project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Standard conditions, design features and mitigation measures will apply to the Project. Any impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. With these findings, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X The Initial Study identifies construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a less than significant impact and includes mitigation measures to reduce emission levels to a less than significant impact on the environment (see 3. Air Quality section above for detailed analysis and mitigation measures). Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels during construction. With the incorporation of standard conditions, project design features, and proposed mitigation measures (see 13. Noise section above for detailed analysis and mitigation measures), the Project would not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of the standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies and any elevated interior and exterior noise levels associated with the construction of the Project would be reduced to less than significant. Lastly, as demonstrated in Sections 1 - 20 of this Initial Study, the Project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Standard conditions, design features and mitigation measures will apply to the Project. Any impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 318 317 SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBTPM20006; DRC2018-00529; DRC2018-00530 INITIAL STUDY Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Page 208 VI. SOURCES Chaffey Joint Union High School District (accessed December 2018) https://cjuhsdca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2_site/view_deployment?d=x&theme_id=i338ey8e1qvk d3&group_id=1500178971409 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Adopted May 19, 2010 (accessed December 2018) https://www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/planning/genplan.asp Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Volume I SCH No. 2000061027, February 16, 2010 (accessed December 2018) https://www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/planning/genplan.asp City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Map (accessed December 2018) https://www.cityofrc.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13208 Cucamonga School District (accessed December 2018) https://www.cuca.k12.ca.us/ Cucamonga School District-Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, February 16, 2018 (accessed December 2018) https://www.cuca.k12.ca.us/business_information Cucamonga Valley Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016 (accessed December 2018) http://www.cvwdwater.com/DocumentCenter/View/1955/2015-Urban-Water-Management-Plan--- CVWD?bidId= Department of Toxic Substances Control - EnviroStor (accessed December 2018) http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov State Water Sources Control Board – GEOTRACKER (accessed December 2018) http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov Google Earth Aerial Photographs (accessed January 2019) www.earth.google.com Google Maps (accessed January 2019) www.google.com/maps OmniTrans – Maps and Schedules (accessed January 2019) http://omnitrans.org/schedules/ Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (accessed January 2019) http://qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/ Rancho Cucamonga Ordinances (accessed January 2019) http://qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/ 319 318 Page 1 of 12 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: DRC2018-00529 and SUBTPM20006 Applicant: Red Rock Development (Michael Morris) Initial Study Prepared by: Matthew Fagan Consulting Services Inc.______ Date: _11/6/19________________ Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance Section 1 - Aesthetics 1) Section 2 - Agricultural Resources 1) Section 3 – Air Quality Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) During architectural coating and painting, the contractor shall limit the amount of daily building surface area to be painted to 14,000 square feet or less. PD C Review of Plans A/C 2/4 Section 4 - Biological Resources 1) No grubbing, clearing, or grading shall occur during the general songbird and raptor nesting season, which is generally January 15 to August 31. All grading permits, improvement plans, and the final map shall state the same. If grubbing, clearing, or grading is proposed to occur during the general bird nesting season, a pre-construction survey within all suitable habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active bird nests are present within the disturbance area. If there are no nesting birds (includes nest building or other breeding/nesting behavior) within the disturbance area, clearing, grubbing, and grading shall be allowed to proceed. If active nests or nesting birds are observed within the disturbance area, the biologist shall delineate a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around each nest. Construction activities within the buffer shall not be permitted until nesting behavior has ceased, nests have failed, or young have fledged. The biological monitor may modify the buffer or propose other recommendations in order to minimize disturbance to nesting birds. PD B Review of Plans B/C/D 2 2) A 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl is required. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to PD B Review of Plans B/C/D 2 320 319 Page 2 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance ground disturbance in accordance with survey requirements contained CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to avoid direct take of burrowing owl. If burrowing owl are determined to occupy the Project site or immediate vicinity, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department will be notified, and avoidance measures will be implemented, as appropriate, pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code, the MBTA, and the mitigation guidelines prepared by the CDFW (2012). The following measures are recommended in the CDFW guidelines to avoid impacts on an active burrow: • No disturbance should occur within 50 meters (approximately 160 feet) of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season. • No disturbance should occur within 75 meters (approximately 250 feet) of occupied burrows during the breeding season. For unavoidable impacts, passive or active relocation of burrowing owls would need to be implem ented by a qualified biologist outside the breeding season, in accordance with procedures set by the CDFW. Section 5 – Cultural Resources 6) 1) See Mitigation Measures MM-TCR and MM-TCR-2 Section 6 – Geology and Soils 1) Paleontological Monitoring. The monitoring shall be conducted part-time during over-excavation of the building pads below 5-feet in the Older Quaternary Alluvium, increasing to full-time during excavation of the deeper utilities (e.g. deeper removals, storm drain and sewers) in the Older Quaternary Alluvium. Supervision by a Project paleontologist will be maintained during paleontologic grading observations when grading in the on-site geologic units. In the event that fossils are exposed, the Project paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of exposure to facilitate evaluation, and (if identified as potentially significant) to salvage significant fossils. BO C During Construction A 4 Section 7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions Section 8 – Hazards and Waste Materials 321 320 Page 3 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance Section 9 – Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activities Section 10 – Land Use and Planning 1) Section 11 – Mineral Resources 1) Section 12 – Noise 1) The Project applicant shall implement a noise monitoring program during construction. The monitoring program will alert construction management personnel when noise levels approach the upper limits of the 8-hour Leq exceedance threshold (65 dBA) along the adjacent residential uses and 70 dBA at the adjacent industrial uses. Construction activity should cease prior to noise levels exceeding the 8-hour threshold. PD/BO B Review of Plans C/A 4 2) The Project applicant shall install a temporary noise barrier along the northwest corner of the property to shield the residential units from the line of sight of the construction activity (in conformance with Exhibit D of the Acoustic Study). BO/PD C During Construction Review of Plans A/C 2/4 Section 13 – Population and Housing 1) Section 14 – Public Services 1) Section 15 - Recreation 1) Section 16 – Transportation/Traffic 1) Intersection 2 – Archibald Ave / Arrow Route: Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Project Applicant shall implement the following: CE D Final Inspection A/C 3 322 321 Page 4 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance a. Restripe the eastbound Arrow Route approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane and one shared through/right- turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane. b. Restripe the westbound Arrow Route approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane and one shared through/right- turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane. c. Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the westbound Arrow Route approach. d. Change the westbound and eastbound left- turn signal phasing from protected to protected/permitted. The protected left-turn phase will utilize a green left-turn arrow. The permitted left-turn phase will utilize and be identified by flashing left-turn arrow. Based on various guidelines including guidelines set by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (OCTEC), the protected/permitted left-turn can be implemented since the intersection and approach meets the following criteria: • Left-turn lanes are limited to a single lane (no double or triple left-turn lanes); • Opposing through traffic has 2 or less lanes; • Speed limit does not exceed 45 miles per hour; and • Sight distance is adequate since no roadway curvature or obstacles affecting visibility for the left-turning vehicles are present. • Based on collision history information provided by the City from 2014 to end of 2018, the table below summarizes the number of reported collisions which would be attributed to the eastbound/westbound left-turn movement at the intersection: Year Total Collisions Collisions Attributed to Eastbound/Westbound Left-Turn Movement 2014 5 0 323 322 Page 5 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance 2015 8 0 2016 5 0 2017 18 3 2018 12 0 1) 2) Intersection 3 – Archibald Ave / 9th Street: Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Project Applicant shall implement the following: a. Maintain the existing split signal phasing for the east/west movements and restripe the eastbound 9th Street approach from one left turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane. b. Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the eastbound 9th Street approach. CE D Final Inspection A/C 3 3) Intersection 4 – Archibald Ave / Acacia Street: The Project Applicant shall implement the following: • Install signage to restrict movements from Acacia Street onto Archibald Avenue to right- turns only during peak hours. This restriction might only be applicable to the westbound approach since the eastbound approach serves private property. Based on discussions with the City, considering the traffic volume for the eastbound approach and the proportional delay it adds to the overall intersection operation, it would be acceptable to implement mitigation to only the East approach to relieve delay to all public approaches. CE D Final Inspection A/C 3 4) Intersection 5 – Archibald Ave / 7th Street: The Project Applicant shall implement the following: • Install signage to restrict movements from 7th Street onto Archibald Avenue to right-turns only during peak hours. CE D Final Inspection A/C 3 5) Intersection 1 – Archibald Ave / Foothill Blvd: The Project Applicant shall make a fair share contribution to implement the following: CE D Final Inspection A/C 3 324 323 Page 6 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance • Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the eastbound Foothill Boulevard approach. • Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the westbound Foothill Boulevard approach. • Intersection 2 – Archibald Ave / Arrow Route: The Project Applicant shall make a fair share contribution to implement the following: • Restripe the northbound Archibald Avenue approach from one left- turn lane, two through lanes and one defacto right turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one dedicated right-turn lane. • Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the northbound Archibald Avenue approach. • Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the eastbound Arrow Route approach. 6) Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Project applicant shall participate in the funding (on a fair share basis, as shown in Table 17-10 of the Initial Study) to the following intersections for the Long Range Year (2040) Condition: • Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; and • Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. CE D Final Inspection A/C 3 Section 17 – Tribal Cultural Resources 1) The Project applicant shall retain and compensate for the services of a qualified professional tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) Tribal Government and is listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s tribal contact list for the area of the Project site. The tribal monitor/consultant shall only be present onsite during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities, which are defined by the Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The tribal monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction PD B Review of Plans B 2 325 324 Page 7 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall cease when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the tribal representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. Proof of the Project applicant’s retention of the tribal monitor/consultant shall be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department prior to the issuance of permits for construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant: The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC’s Tribal Contact list for the area of the Project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on- site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. 2) Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project PD C During Construction A 4 326 325 Page 8 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources, and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological m aterial that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non- profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. 3) Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. PD C During Construction A 4 4) Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discovery, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant will immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager PD C During Construction A 4 327 326 Page 9 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). 5) Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the following treatment measures shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the Project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery PD C During Construction A 4 328 327 Page 10 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects will be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. 6) The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall follow/implement the following measures during the Project’s construction phases that involve ground- disturbing activities: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards PD C During Construction A 4 329 328 Page 11 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within item #4, below, regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within item #4, below. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in item #1, above, of any pre- contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the Project. 330 329 Page 12 of 12 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non- Compliance Section 18 – Utility and Service Systems 1) Section 19 – Mandatory Findings of Significance 1) Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD - Planning Director or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/ Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 7 - Citation 331 330 332331 Exhibit U333332 334333 RESOLUTION NO.19-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00529, A REQUEST TO DEVELOP 13.6 ACRE SITE WITH FOUR (4) INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING 240,710 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 7TH STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-211-24 A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Redrock Development, Inc. on behalf of Scheu Management Company, filed an application for a Design Review DRC2018-00529, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 13, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the request of Staff, the Planning Commission Continued the public hearing to December 11, 2019 to allow time for the Initial Study and Mitigated to be recirculated (to address a technical error that occurred during the initial circulation of those documents) and be available for review and comment. 3. On December 11, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 11, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to approximately 13.6-acre irregularly shaped piece of land within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street; and c. Properties to the north, south, east and west contain industrial/warehouse buildings and are located within the General Industrial (GI) District; and 335 334 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.19-73 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00529 – SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 2 d. The proposed project consists of the construction of four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet and ancillary on-site improvements; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, and front/rear setbacks; and f. The project complies with the landscaping requirements as prescribed in the General Industrial (GI) District; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The site is located within the General Industrial (GI) District, which permits a range of industrial activities. The project consists of four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet. All site improvements, including parking and landscaped areas, are designed to be consistent with the General Industrial (GI) District. Furthermore, the potential uses within the proposed buildings are would be consisted with this land use designation. b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Development Code designates the project site as General Industrial (GI) District. The proposed industrial/warehouse buildings are consistent with the land use intent of the General Industrial (GI) District. The zoning of the adjacent sites to the property are also within the General Industrial (GI) District and are (or will be) developed with compatible buildings and uses. c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The buildings are designed for industrial/warehouse operations. The buildings meet all setbacks, floor area, height, and landscaping requirements. The buildings have been designed to meet the City’s architectural standards. The project meets the minimum parking, loading, and access requirements. d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The site is surrounded by industrial developments of a similar scale and intensity. Potential uses/operations within the proposed buildings and on the project site are anticipated to comply with the performance standards described in the Development Code relating to, for example, noise, lighting, and odors. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project was prepared. Based on the findings contained in that IS, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to, for example, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, 336 335 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.19-73 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00529 – SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 3 tribal cultural resources, 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 (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program was also prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. During the 30-day review public comment period, Staff received a comment letter from Lozeau Drury, LLP on October 23, 2019. The letter expressed issues with the IS/MND and cited concerns with the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. Emails were also received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on October 23 and 24, 2019, respectively. Both emails contained requests for certain appendices associated with the technical studies used in the environmental analysis of the project. The information was provided to these agencies as requested. These agencies subsequently provided comment letters. The comment letters were forwarded to the applicant’s environmental consultant for review and responses to the comments The IS/MND was recirculated on November 6, 2019 to address technical errors that occurred during the first circulation of the environmental document. No additional comments were received during the second 30-day review public comment period that was provided. Staff reviewed the comments from the above-noted entities, and the applicant’s consultant’s responses to them, and has concluded that no revisions to, and/or recirculation of, the IS/MND is required. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do 337 336 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.19-73 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00529 – SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 4 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 13th day of November 2019, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: : 338 337 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions All Double Detector Checks (DOC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations generally in front of, and along, the screen walls that enclose the dock areas and not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office comers of each building. 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) screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. 1. All Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006 shall apply.2. 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. 3. Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 4. 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. 5. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet.6. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 7. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 8. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 9. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 12/4/2019 339 338 Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 12. 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. 13. This project is subject to the public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. No final approval, such as a final inspection or a certificate of occupancy, for any development project subject to this chapter shall be granted or issued unless and until the requirements of this chapter have been met. In consideration of any phasing plan or project completion schedule, the city may accept bonds or other surety to assist in the completion of the project, provided they are in a form and manner acceptable to the planning director and city attorney. 14. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 15. 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. 16. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 9Printed: 12/4/2019 340 339 Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 17. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,404.75. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 21. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Services Department and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 22. 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. 23. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 24. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along . 25. 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. 26. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 27. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 28. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 9Printed: 12/4/2019 341 340 Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 29. 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. 30. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 31. 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. 32. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 36. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. 37. The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the midmorning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. 38. The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. 39. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 9Printed: 12/4/2019 342 341 Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 40. 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. 41. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 42. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 43. All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.44. 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. 45. All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24 inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 9Printed: 12/4/2019 343 342 Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. 49. Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services.50. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 51. Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 52. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. 53. 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). 54. All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 55. 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. 56. The site shall be treated with water or other 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. 57. 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. 58. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes.63. Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 64. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 65. Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic.66. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 9Printed: 12/4/2019 344 343 Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew.67. 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. 68. 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. 69. Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following; • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non- vegetated surfaces. 70. 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. 71. If soil contamination is suspected or observed in the project area, or the project proposes to import/export soil that is suspected or observed to be contaminated, the applicant shall provide a report evaluating status of the soil to determine if it has been contaminated by oil and gasoline. The potential solutions for addressing any contamination and a timeline for implementing the chosen solution shall be included in the report. If the soil is contaminated, it shall be disposed of properly in accordance with all applicable and relevant laws and regulations. 72. 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. 73. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 9Printed: 12/4/2019 345 344 Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 74. 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. 75. During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. 76. Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use.77. The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. 78. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 79. The construction contractor shall change the timing and/or sequence of the noisiest construction operations to avoid sensitive times of the day. 80. During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with the manufacturers’ standards. 81. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. 82. 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. 83. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 9Printed: 12/4/2019 346 345 Project #: DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e. beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the Planning Director prior to issuance of Building Permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. 84. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to final inspection by the Planning Department and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building and Safety Department. 85. 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. 86. Category 5 telephone cable or fiber optic cable shall be provided for office buildings and other non-residential development. 87. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Comply with the conditions of approval in SUBTPM200061. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and building must be in accordance to the State of CA and ADA regulations. If it is anticipated that there will be a need for temporary fire protection water supply and/or temporary fire access, submit a separate plan for review and approval that complies with RCFD Standard 33-3. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 9Printed: 12/4/2019 347 346 RESOLUTION NO.19-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20006, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 13.6 ACRES OF LAND INTO FOUR (4) SEPARATE PARCELS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 7TH STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-211-24 A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Redrock Development, Inc. on behalf of Scheu Management Company, filed an application for a Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM2006, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 13, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the request of Staff, the Planning Commission Continued the public hearing to December 11, 2019 to allow time for the Initial Study and Mitigated to be recirculated (to address a technical error that occurred during the initial circulation of those documents) and be available for review and comment. 3. On December 11, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 11, 2019, 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 the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street; and b. The application applies to a 13.6-acre irregularly shaped piece of land located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street; and c. Surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned General Industrial (GI), and contain industrial/manufacturing facilities; and 348 347 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.19-74 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20006 – SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 2 d. The application contemplates the subdivision of the subject parcel into four (4) parcels of land. Parcel 1 is proposed at 1.03 acres, Parcel 2 is 1.14 acres, Parcel 3 is 4.69 acres, and Parcel 4 is 5.98 acres; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to lot size and dimensions; and f. The application is in conjunction with a proposal to develop the site with four (4) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 240,710 square feet consistent with the development standards within the General Industrial (GI) District. 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into four parcels and is consistent with the development district of the project site. b. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into four parcels. c. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed subdivision meets all standards outlined in the Development Code, and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project was prepared. Based on the findings contained in that IS, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to, for example, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, 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 (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program was also prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. During the 30-day review public comment period, Staff received a comment letter from Lozeau Drury, LLP on October 23, 2019. The letter expressed issues with the IS/MND and cited concerns with the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. Emails were also received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on October 23 and 24, 2019, respectively. Both emails contained requests for certain appendices associated with the technical studies used in the environmental analysis of the project. The information was provided to these agencies as requested. These agencies subsequently provided comment letters. The comment letters were forwarded to the applicant’s environmental consultant for review and responses to the comments 349 348 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.19-74 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20006 – SCHEU MANAGEMENT COMPANY December 11, 2019 Page 3 The IS/MND was recirculated on November 6, 2019 to address technical errors that occurred during the first circulation of the environmental document. No additional comments were received during the second 30-day review public comment period that was provided. Staff reviewed the comments from the above-noted entities, and the applicant’s consultant’s responses to them, and has concluded that no revisions to, and/or recirculation of, the IS/MND is required. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December 2019, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 350 349 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 1. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 2. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business including changes to the operating days/hours; change in the location on-site or within the building of the use/activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; 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 Planning Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for review by the City. 3. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 4. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Developer shall install a dark fiber conduit package fronting the development. Two 4” Schedule 40 PVC conduits, along with three 1 ¼” innerducts in one of the 4” conduits, per City Standard 145, with connection through the parkway to each lot or parcel (fiber-to-the curb, FTTC). The size, placement, and location of the conduit shall be shown on the Street Improvement Plans and subject to Engineering Services Department review and approval prior to issuance of final map approval. 1. Development impact fees, per th engineering schedule, shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. Note: Fees are subject to change annually. 2. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 12/4/2019 351 350 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions This development shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of the development. To the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non-residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3. 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and the permitted grading plan set for non-residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2 5. Construct improvements as outlined in the traffic impact analysis and as follows, 1. At the intersection of Arrow Rte and Archibald Ave. A. Re-stripe the eastbound and westbound Arrow Route approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane and one shared through/right turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane. B. Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the westbound Arrow Route approach. C. Modify existing eastbound and westbound protected left turn operation to protected/permissive left turn operation, including all traffic signal equipment as needed. 2. At the intersection of 9th St and Archibald Ave. A. Re-stripe the eastbound approach of 9th St from one left turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane. B. Implement right-turn overlap phasing at the eastbound approach of 9th St and construct all traffic signal equipment as needed. 3. At the intersection of Acacia St and Archibald Ave. A. Install signage to restrict movements from Acacia Street westbound approach onto Archibald Avenue to right turns only during peak hours. 4. At the intersection of 7th St and Archibald Ave. A. Install signage to restrict movements from 7th Street onto Archibald Avenue to right-turns only during peak hours. Provide fair share contribution to future year improvements necessary as described on Table 11 of TIA. 6. Standard Conditions of Approval www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 352 351 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Environmental Engineering, at (909) 477-2700 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 7. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to Building Permit issuance if no map is involved. 8. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first, for: 9. Permits shall be obtained from MWD for work within their right of way.10. 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. 11. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans.” If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 353 352 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Other Notes: Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 16. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 354 353 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 355 354 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 19. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 20. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 21. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 22. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 23. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 24. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.25. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 356 355 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 50 total feet on Archibald Avenue 33 total feet on 7th Street 33 total feet on Acacia Street Provide extra dedication as required to provide a standard knuckle and offset cul-de-sac on Acacia Street and 7th Street as required. 26. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.27. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 28. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. 29. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 30. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 31. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and building must be in accordance to the State of CA and ADA regulations. If it is anticipated that there will be a need for temporary fire protection water supply and/or temporary fire access, submit a separate plan for review and approval that complies with RCFD Standard 33-3. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 357 356 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 2. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 3. Roof water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 8. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 9. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R’s or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R’s and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 10. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 11. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 358 357 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. 12. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 359 358 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.10 (Grading and paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Swales. 2. Water collection and disposal systems. 3. French drains. 4. Water retention gardens. 5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge. Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path. 13. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 17. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. 18. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 19. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 360 359 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 20. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 21. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 22. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 23. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 25. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 30. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 31. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 361 360 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 32. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 33. The Site and Drainage Plan in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall show the locations of all roof downspout drains. if required for storm water quality purposes, the downspouts shall include filters. 34. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a final project specific water quality management plan for review and approval, and shall have said document recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office. 35. 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. 36. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 362 361 Project #: SUBTPM20006 DRC2018-00529 Project Name: EDR - SCHEU DISTRIBUTION CENTER Location: 9668 7TH ST - 020921124-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document. 37. 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. 38. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”. 39. 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”. 40. The subject project, shall accept all existing off-site storm water drainage flows and safely convey those flows through or around the project site. If existing off-site storm water drainage flows mix with any on-site storm water drainage flows, then the off-site storm water drainage flows shall be treated with the on-site storm water drainage flows for storm water quality purposes, prior to discharging the storm water drainage flows from the project site. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”. 42. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 13Printed: 12/4/2019 363 362 DECEMBER 11, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 1 of 3 A. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo _____ Vice Chairman Oaxaca _____ Commissioner Dopp _____ Commissioner Morales _____ Commissioner Williams _____ B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. DISCUSSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION C1. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – A request for a Pre-Application Review of a proposed mixed-use development of 643 for- rent apartments and 12,425 square-feet of commercial floor area on a vacant, 17.1-acre site consisting of six parcels within the Mixed Use Financial, Restaurants, Residential (MFC) District, Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue; APNs: 1077-422-51, -55, -98, and -99 and 1090-121-38, and -39. 364 363 DECEMBER 11, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 2 of 3 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. D. ADJOURNMENT I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 5, 2019, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Comments.” There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. 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. 365 364 DECEMBER 11, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Page 3 of 3 AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,114 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. 366 365 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 11, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director BY: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – A request for a Pre-Application Review of a proposed mixed-use development of 643 for-rent apartments and 12,425 square-feet of commercial floor area on a vacant, 17.1-acre site consisting of six parcels within the Mixed Use Financial, Restaurants, Residential (MFC) District, Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue; APNs: 1077-422-51, -55, - 98, and -99 and 1090-121-38, and -39. PROCESS: The Pre-Application Review process provides a project proponent the opportunity to present conceptual designs to the Planning Commission prior to formal application submittal in order to receive broad, general comments and direction. The focus of the meeting is a discussion by the Planning Commissioners regarding the technical and design issues related to the project. The meeting is not a forum for debate and no formal decision or vote is made. After the meeting, staff prepares written comments summarizing the direction of the Commission and staff, which are sent to the applicant. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The project site consists of six vacant parcels with a combined area of 17.1 acres. Immediately adjacent to the site are three commercial buildings – a gas station (Shell), a multi-tenant retail building, and a drive-thru fast food restaurant (McDonalds), all of which are part of “The Commons” shopping center (Exhibit A). The original plans for The Commons shopping center contemplated three additional buildings at the southeast portion of the project site. These buildings were never constructed. If completed as originally proposed, The Commons shopping center would have encompassed the entire Foothill Boulevard frontage between Elm Avenue and Milliken Avenue. The southeast portion of the site is currently used for seasonal sales of pumpkins and Christmas trees. Public right-of-way improvements are generally limited to curb and gutter along all street frontages, sidewalks on Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue, and bus bays. Landscaping on-site is minimal and consists of a few trees and grasses. The site has street frontage along Foothill Boulevard, Elm Avenue, Church Street, and Milliken Avenue. The existing land uses, general plan, and zoning designations for the project site and surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted parcels) are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Mixed Use Mixed Use Financial, Restaurants, Residential (MFC) District 1 North Apartment Complex (Del Mar Apartments) Medium High Medium High Density (MH) 1 367 366 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION December 11, 2019 Page 2 South (Across Foothill Blvd) Shopping Center Industrial Park Industrial Park (IP) District East (Across Milliken Ave) Hospital Mixed Use Mixed Use Hospital and Related Facilities, Office (MHO) 1 Vacant West (Across Elm Ave) Shopping Center Community Commercial Community Commercial (CC) 1 1 – Terra Vista Planned Community PROJECT OVERVIEW: A. GENERAL: The applicant proposes the development of 643 for-rent apartments ranging from studios to 2-bedroom units, with 12,425 square-feet of commercial space (Exhibit B, Sheet A1.1). Out of the 643 total units proposed, 323 will be located within 3-story walk-ups located toward the northern portion of the project site. The remaining 320 units will be contained in a 4- story wrap building at the southeastern corner of the site. All commercial spaces are proposed along the south elevation of the proposed wrap building, fronting Foothill Boulevard. The overall density of the proposed project is 37.6 dwelling units/acre, which meets the average density of 30 dwelling units/acre contemplated for the Terra Vista Mixed-Use Area, per Table 17.36.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC), and the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. Due to a grade difference on the project site, it is assumed that the height of any finished building pads along the project’s north boundary will be lower than the surface level of Church Street. This differential also occurs along Milliken Avenue, particularly at the intersection with Church Street. The grade difference decreases from north to south, with the project’s southeast corner being generally level (equal) with the surface elevation of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. B. ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING PLOTTING, AND SITE LAYOUT: A north-south street and an east-west street split the project into 4 blocks, creating a grid street pattern, with an intersection at the center of the project. Generally, the buildings are plotted along street frontages on Elm Avenue, Church Street, Milliken Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard, as well as the interior north- south and east-west streets. Three complex types 20-plex, 23-plex, and 37-plex are proposed for the three-story walk-up buildings that comprise the northern portion of the project site. All 3-story walk-up buildings feature a modern interpretation of the “farmhouse” architectural style, characterized by clapboard siding, angled roofs, farmhouse-style light accents (Exhibit B, Sheets A1.7 to 1.13). Although, building elevations were not provided for the 4-story wrap building, a conceptual rendering was provided for what the building may look like, as viewed from the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue (Exhibit B, Sheet A1.13). A fitness center and a clubhouse are proposed toward the southwesterly corner of the site. However, no renderings or elevations for these buildings are provided at this time. C. PARKING AND CIRCULATION: The submitted project plans only provided a complete parking tabulation for the 3-story walk-up buildings. This is reflected in the table below: 368 367 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION December 11, 2019 Page 3 PARKING T ABULATION FOR 3-STORY WALK-UP Unit Type Number of Units Parking Requirement Parking Spaces Required Studio 84 1.3 spaces/unit* 110 (84 covered) 1 Bedroom 153 1.5 spaces/unit* 230 (153 covered) 2 Bedroom 86 2 spaces/unit* 172 (86 covered) Guest N/A 1 per 3 units 108 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 620 (323 covered) TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 619 (170 covered) DEFICIT 1 (153 covered) * With 1 in garage or carport As demonstrated in the table above, the 3-story walk-up portion of the project is deficient by 1 parking stall, and 153 covered parking stalls. A thorough parking tabulation for the remainder of the project, consisting of the commercial spaces and the 4-story wrap building will need to be provided during the formal submittal to determine if the project as a whole complies with the City’s parking requirements. The project is accessed by vehicles via five driveways, one from Church Street, two from Milliken Avenue, one from Foothill Boulevard, and one from The Commons shopping center parking lot (Exhibit B, Sheet A1.1). Pedestrian (sidewalk) connections are proposed throughout the project interior and project perimeter. However, there are gaps to these pedestrian connections that are further discussed under the staff comments section of this report. D. LANDSCAPE, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES: A conceptual landscape plan was provided showing a pool, fitness center, clubhouse, and a park area (Exhibit B, Sheet L1). The submittal, however, did not include specific information regarding open space or landscape square-footages. E. WALLS/FENCES: No information regarding fences or gates are provided with the submittal. STAFF COMMENTS: Rancho Cucamonga’s success is in large part due to its adherence to high standards regarding quality new development as well as initiatives that emphasize community health and prosperity. A key priority in the City’s Economic Development Strategy is creating an environment that is attractive to millennials for the purposes of attracting office-based businesses that cater to the millennial workforce. It is therefore critical for Rancho Cucamonga to facilitate the development of walkable and bike-friendly mixed-use places that are appealing to this demographic group. The General Plan echoes the City’s Economic Development strategy by recognizing that that portions of Rancho Cucamonga are evolving into more urban places, and that the community desires the creation of new, more sustainable development forms. The desired outcome of the Mixed-Use designation is to create special urban places within the general suburban pattern of single-purpose uses. Staff comments are provided in the outline below with these goals in mind, for consideration/discussion by the Commission. DISCUSSION OUTLINE: 369 368 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION December 11, 2019 Page 4 • Street Layout and Ac cess – The proposed site plan features a rectangular grid street network which provides a coherent and predictable circulation pattern, allowing for easy pathfinding for residents, visitors, and first responders. Most blocks are 400 feet or less, which helps create “breaks” on the streetscape. A block length between 250 to 450 feet is considered ideal for accommodating a walkable environment. Shorter blocks create a perception of a shorter walk, as each street corner acts like a “waypoint” for pedestrians on the way to their destinations, as well as expanding the choices for pedestrian routes. Staff is generally in support of the proposed street grid. However, staff recommends that the proposed circulation pattern from Elm Avenue be revised to a traditional “T” intersection. The currently proposed design does not line up with a proposed driveway along the southern boundary of the project, which could cause confusion to drivers, especially to visitors of the adjacent shopping center. • Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity - One of the community expectations of the General Plan’s Mixed-Use Designation is to foster safe and convenient pedestrian movement into and within the site (General Plan, page LU-15). Sidewalks are proposed within the interior and along the perimeter of the project site. However, this sidewalk network has gaps resulting in an inefficient and unattractive walking path to several locations/destinations within and around the project (Exhibit C). Staff recommends that sidewalks or decorative crosswalks be added in these areas as appropriate, in order to complete the pedestrian network and prioritize walkability. Additionally, the sidewalks proposed along Church Street, Milliken Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard are too narrow to encourage pedestrian activity and may not give off a feeling of safety to pedestrians from road traffic. Staff recommends that the width of these sidewalks be increased to at least 8 feet. Details regarding site lighting were not provided in the submittal. However, the applicant should ensure that pedestrian level lighting (such as lighted bollards) are provided around, and within the site to encourage a safe and attractive walking environment in the evenings. • Streetscape and Sense of Place - The intent of the General Plan’s Mixed-Use Designation is to achieve a complete integration of the uses and their support functions into a livable development that fosters a strong sense of place. Furthermore, mixed use developments are expected to provide a unique and engaging experience for residents and visitors to the City, similar to those often found in older, walkable towns and cities (General Plan, page LU-15 and LU-16). A major factor in creating a strong sense of place is the presence of active, walkable neighborhood streets. The proposed north-south and east-west streets that split the project into four blocks provides an excellent foundation for creating an urban place. However, as currently proposed, these streets appear and feel more like drive aisles, rather than a street. Staff suggests incorporating the following changes to improve the look and feel of these streets: a. Utilize angled parking instead of perpendicular parking to evoke the feel of an urban street and visually separate the streets from the rest of the project’s parking areas. b. Incorporate special decorative paving along the entire length of the east-west and north- south streets. 370 369 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION December 11, 2019 Page 5 c. Visually narrow the parking areas and the travel lanes by incorporating a concrete gutter between the travel lane and parking stalls. d. Visually narrow the street by relocating trees currently proposed adjacent to the sidewalk so that they are adjacent to the drive aisle, at the entrance of the parking stall. e. Incorporate festoon lighting and/or other similar elements. f. Provide tabletop/raised pedestrian crossings to calm traffic. The north-south street has an approximately 100-foot gap between building facades resulting in a fragmented streetscape. Staff suggests that this gap be treated with landscape screening or an arbor to provide visual interest and maintain an unbroken streetscape. Additionally, the proposed parking area north of the wrap building (abutting the east-west street) weakens the streetscape by making the east-west street look and feel like part of the guest parking lot. Therefore, a separation between the guest parking lot and the east-west street must be created to reinforce street character. One solution may be to create a pedestrian arcade to properly frame the southern side of the east-west street. • Building Plotting – RCMC Table 17.36.010-3 requires a building setback of at least 45 feet from a major street (Milliken Avenue, Foothill Boulevard) and at least 35 feet from a secondary/collector street (Elm Avenue, Church Street). The closest setbacks for the project is 20 feet and 2 inches from a secondary/collector street, and 15 feet from a major street. RCMC Table 17.36.020-2 allows mixed-use developments to be granted a setback reduction of up to 75% of the required streetscape setbacks. The project will meet all setbacks from the public right-of way provided that a maximum 67% setback reduction is applied for a major street, and a maximum 43% reduction is applied for a secondary/collector street. The General Plan’s Mixed-Use Designation expects that developments emphasize pedestrian orientation in site and building design and promote a walkable environment with active street frontages and well-scaled buildings. Additionally, all parking lots and enclosed parking facilities are expected to be located to the rear of buildings or other locations that are not visible from major streets (General Plan, page LU-15). The proposed building plotting meets General Plan’s expectations in terms of site design for a Mixed-Use development. The proposed 3-story walk- up buildings frame all perimeter and interior streets, and a majority of the parking areas are located at the rear of buildings. The 4-story wrap building proposed at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard properly frames the street and provides a strong presence at the corner of a major intersection. The 3 and 4 story buildings are well-scaled at the project’s corner location. In order to maintain consistency with the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, staff recommends that a pedestrian plaza/courtyard be added at the northwest corner of the intersection. A pedestrian plaza/courtyard will enhance the public realm by providing an attractive gathering area at the corner of this major intersection. • Architecture and Floor Plans – As discussed, the 3-story walk-up buildings feature a modern interpretation of the “farmhouse” architectural style, characterized by clapboard siding, angled roofs, and farmhouse-style light accents. In order to break up building mass and provide greater 371 370 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION December 11, 2019 Page 6 architectural interest, staff recommends providing greater horizontal building articulation between balconies and tower elements, varying rooflines/building heights, and incorporating shutters and awnings around windows for the 3-story walk-ups. Consider a standing seam metal roof instead of the currently proposed tile roof for a more contemporary and upscale appearance. Adding a second architectural style for the 3-story walk-ups is also recommended to break the visual monotony resulting from several blocks of buildings with a sing ular architectural style. Staff recommends enhancing the building elevations for the 3-story walk-up buildings to include architectural elements that will emphasize building entrances. Consider recessing the entrances to make room for small “entrance plazas” landscaped with large pots and seating to activate the public realm. With respect to the 4-story wrap building, all commercial spaces along Foothill Boulevard should be located directly next to each other, unbroken by covered plazas. Staff suggests removing or relocating the proposed covered plazas along Foothill Boulevard in order to allow for a critical mass of uninterrupted commercial frontage. Staff also recommends incorporating first-story live- work units along the 4-story wrap building’s west elevation facing the parking lot in order to activate and provide leasing opportunities toward the interior of the project. Staff believes that live-work units at this location is appropriate, given that the parking lot is adjacent to an existing shopping center. Live-work units should also be considered along part of the east elevation (closest to the intersection of Foothill and Milliken) to complete a commercial frontage for the corner of the intersection. In order to encourage an active, pedestrian friendly environment, all ground floor units in all buildings fronting all exterior and interior streets should provide direct, visible ground floor access to adjacent sidewalks. Note that the architectural comments above are based on the review of the floor plans and renderings submitted by the applicant. As discussed, only a conceptual rendering of the 4-story wrap building was provided. Additional comments may be provided by staff upon submittal of building elevations for all four sides of the building. These comments may include, but are not limited to, incorporating additional materials or solutions to strengthen architectural vernacular, enhancing side and rear elevations to avoid blank expanses, utilizing additional or alternative color schemes, and floor plan changes to encourage pedestrian friendly streetscapes. • Parking – As discussed in Section C of this report, a complete parking tabulation was only provided for the 3-story walk-up buildings. A more thorough parking calculation for the 4-story wrap building is required during the formal submittal. Fully dimensioned floor plans will also need to be provided in order to ensure that each proposed garage space meets the minimum dimension of 10 by 20 feet free and clear of all obstructions, per RCMC Sec. 17.64.040(B)(4). The 3-story walk -up portion of the project as currently proposed, has 84 studios, 153 one- bedroom units, and 86 two-bedroom units. This unit mix will require a total of 620 parking spaces, 323 of which must be covered in a garage or carport. The project proposes a total of 619 parking spaces with 170 of these spaces covered in a garage. This results in a deficit of 1 parking space, and 153 covered spaces. One solution to meet the covered parking requirement is to convert the parking row between the 3-story walk-up buildings to carport parking. 372 371 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION December 11, 2019 Page 7 • Landscaping – Although a conceptual landscape plan was provided with the submittal, details regarding plant types and landscape square footages were not provided. Based on the review of conceptual landscape plan, staff recommends revising the landscape theme proposed along Foothill Boulevard and the interior street intersection to incorporate more urban features such as decorative paving, tree wells, bollards, etc. The 4-story wrap building’s urban façade along Foothill Boulevard and the interior street intersection’s urban character should be complemented with an urban landscape treatment. In order to strengthen the character of the project’s interior streets, staff suggests that large canopy trees be planted on either side of the north-south and east-west streets. Planting tall palm trees on all four sides of the interior street intersection will also help strengthen the streetscape, creating a visual focal point at the center of the project. • Healthy Development Checklist – The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan encourages the creation of walkable/bikeable districts that facilitate physical activity and healthier choices for residents, workers, and visitors. Since the neighborhood design has a great impact on the health and well-being of residents, staff has reviewed the proposal against the Riverside University Health System’s Healthy Development Checklist. The Healthy Development Checklist is intended to help communities across the Inland Empire incorporate health in new developments. The findings from staff’s review of the Health Development Checklist generally support staff’s comments discussed in previous sections of this report. One criterion in the Healthy Development Checklist is how well the project contributes or creates a complete network of sidewalks. The presence of a complete sidewalk network is a major determinant of whether or not someone may choose walking for any given trip. Walking is positively correlated with the presence of sidewalks and perceived neighborhood aesthetics and safety. Lack of physical activity is a major factor in Americans’ health. The provision of a network that facilitates walking can help bridge this physical activity gap and directly influence measurable health indicators. Although the project provides an extensive pedestrian sidewalk network, there are gaps in this network that could discourage walking and force people to walk across planting areas and drive aisles. As discussed in the Staff Comments section of the report, revising the sidewalk network to fill these gaps would go a long way into providing a comprehensive and attractive sidewalk system that encourages pedestrian activity. Another criterion is how well the project enhances walkability by providing a highly connected street network. There is ample evidence that greater street connectivity and higher residential density are related to higher total physical activity and lower BMI. Adults are more likely to walk if they live in neighborhoods with high connectivity and intersection density, high population density, and a mix of land uses. A high intersection density is one of the single most important variables for determining whether a place will have high enough levels of connectivity to foster increased levels of walking, as well as for increasing transit use and reducing vehicle distance traveled. Grid street patterns that decrease distance between destinations encourage walking and help foster physical activity. Using the optimal intersection density of 140 intersections per square mile, the project site of 39.68-acres ideally should have at least 1 intersection. The project plans show street intersection in the center of the site, which suggests most block lengths on the project are “just 373 372 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION December 11, 2019 Page 8 right” to foster a walkable environment. Additionally, the presence of a grid street network allows pedestrians to take the most direct, shortest route to any destination. Based on staff’s review of the proposed project against the Healthy Development Checklist, keeping in consideration the level of information currently on hand, it can be concluded that the project generally meets what constitutes a “healthy development”. REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: The proposed project will require the following entitlements (minor applications are not listed): 1. Design Review - $34,079 2. Tentative Tract Map - $15,000 (deposit) 3. Specific Plan Amendment - $10,000 (deposit) 4. Development Code Amendment - $10,000 (deposit) 5. Environmental Review - City Administrative Processing Fee - $2,000 (deposit) 6. Environmental Review – Consultant Cost – Actual Cost 7. Environmental Review – City Attorney Fee – Actual Cost 8. Notice of Filing Sign - $971 per sign 9. Public Noticing, Staff Time - $212 10. Public Noticing, Advertising - $651 NOTE: Fees are subject to change by Council Resolution and are revised annually on July 1st. Public Art: Residential projects with greater than 4 units are required to install public art or pay an in-lieu fee of $750 per residential unit. The public art will be reviewed as part of the Development Review process (see Development Code Chapter 17.124 for more information). SPECIAL STUDIES: The following special studies will be required at the time of formal submittal: 1. Air quality study (including an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, the local significance thresholds, and a health risk assessment) 2. Biological resources study 3. Cultural resources and archeological study per Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) 4. Fiscal impact analysis 5. Noise study 6. Parking study 7. Photometric study 8. Trip generation and trip distribution analysis - based on these studies a Traffic Impact Analysis may be required 9. Water Quality Management Plan NOTE: Additional special studies may be required following the formal submittal of the required applications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Aerial Map Exhibit B – Full-sized Plans (distributed under separate cover) 374 373 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00896 – LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION December 11, 2019 Page 9 Exhibit C – Sidewalk Gap Analysis Exhibit D – Justification Letter (provided by the applicant) AM:VA 375 374 N FOOTHILL BLVD ELM AVE Exhibit A 376 375 APPLICANT/OWNER: LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 1156 North Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 (909) 579-1214 Contact: Brian Jacobson Brian.Jacobson@lewismc.com Project Team LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION UPLAND, CA FOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAPRE-APPLICATION REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOVEMBER 5, 2019 RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECT: ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 North Orange Street Orange, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 Contact: Ioanna Magiati ioannam@aoarchitects.com SHEET INDEX LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE | UPLAND, CA 91786 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866(714) 639-9860 ARCHITECTS ORANGE A R C H I T E C T S O R A N G E FOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST SITE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DATE: 11-05-19 JOB NO.: 2019-283PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW CS-1COVER SHEET CIVIL ENGINEER: MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9302 Pittsburgh Avenue, Suite 230 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 481-6322 Contact: Mark Bertone mbertone@madoleinc.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: SITESCAPES 3190 B2 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 644-9370 Contact: Rick Polhamus RPolhamus@sitescapes.net Exhibit B 377 376 31'-0"20'-0"LEASING/CLUB HOUSE/6,000 SF30'-0"20'-0"FITNESS4,000 SF30'-0"30'-0"PASSAGEWAYER144'-0"PASSAGEWAYER ER4.8 LEVELS124 STALLS / LEVEL4-STORYOPENOPEN50 STALLSLOBBY12211111111111111GROUND -FLOORCOMMERCIAL4-STORY4-STORYGUEST PARKING57 STALLSMAINPARKINGENTRYSECONDARYPARKINGENTRYPLAZAUNITS ABOVECOVEREDPLAZAUNITS ABOVECOVEREDPLAZAGROUND -FLOORCOMMERCIALGROUND -FLOORCOMMERCIALCHURCH STREETFOOTHILL BOULEVARDELM STREET MILLIKENAVENUEVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1"=100'LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE | UPLAND, CA 91786144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866(714) 639-9860ARCHITECTS ORANGEARCHITECTSORANGEFOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST SITERANCHO CUCAMONGA, CADATE: 10-28-19JOB NO.: 2019-283PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW11-05-19C1378377 11-05-19 L1 379 378 LEASING/ CLUB HOUSE/ 6,000 SF FITNESS 4,000 SF PASSAGEWAY ER 1PASSAGEWAYER ER GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL 3,550 SF COVERED PLAZA COVERED PLAZAPLAZA GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL 3,550 SF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL 5,325 SF 4.8 LEVELS 124 STALLS/ LEVEL 4 STORY 50 STALLS OPEN OPEN SECONDARY PARKING ENTRY MAIN PARKING ENTRY 57 GUEST STALLS LOBBY 37-PLEX (3-STORY) 37-PLEX (3-STORY) 37-PLEX (3-STORY) 37-PLEX (3-STORY) 23-PLEX (3-STORY) 20-PLEX (3-STORY) 20-PLEX (3-STORY) 20-PLEX (3-STORY) 23-PLEX (3-STORY) 23-PLEX (3-STORY) 23-PLEX (3-STORY) 23-PLEX (3-STORY)MILLIKEN AVE.FOOTHILL BLVD.ELM AVE.CHURCH ST. LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE | UPLAND, CA 91786 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866(714) 639-9860 ARCHITECTS ORANGE A R C H I T E C T S O R A N G E FOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST SITE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DATE: 11-05-19 JOB NO.: 2019-283PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 1"=60'-0" 60' 120' 180'0 30' PROJECT DATA OVERALL PROJECT SUMMARY 1. STUDIO (480-600 SF) 114 UNITS (17.5 %) 1 BED (620-750 SF)314 UNITS (49%) 2 BED (920-1050 SF)199 UNITS (31%) 3 BED (1,300 SF) 16 UNITS (2.5%) TOTAL 643 UNITS 2. PARCEL ACRES ±17.1 ACRES 3. PARKING RATIO 2.0 STALLS/DU 4. DENSITY 37.6 DU/AC 3 STORY WALK-UP 1. STUDIO (469-557 SF) 84 UNITS (26%) 1 BED (619-759 SF)153 UNITS (47%) 2 BED (961-985 SF) 86 UNITS (27%) TOTAL 323 UNITS (100%) 2. PARCEL ACRES ± 10.74 ACRES 3. DENSITY 30 DU/AC 4. PARKING: STUDIO 84 X 1.3 = 110 STALLS 1 BED 153 X 1.5 = 230 STALLS 2 BED 86 X 2.0 = 172 STALLS GUEST 323 X 0.33 =107 STALLS TOTAL REQUIRED 619 STALLS TOTAL PROVIDED GARAGE 170 TANDEM STALLS 41 OPEN STALLS 408 TOTAL 619 STALLS 5. PARKING RATIO 1.93 STALLS/DU 6. LEASING/CLUB/FITNESS 10,000 SF 7. 4-STORY WRAP 8. STUDIO (600SF)30 UNITS (9%) 1 BED (750 SF)161UNITS (50.5%) 2 BED (1,050 SF)113 UNITS (35.5%) 3 BED (1,300 SF)16 UNITS (5%) TOTAL 320 UNITS 9. PARCEL ACRES ±6.35 ACRES 10. DENSITY 50.4 DU/AC 11. PARKING: STUDIO 30 X 1.3 = 39 STALLS 1 BED 161 X 1.5 = 242 STALLS 2 BED 113 X 2.0 = 226 STALLS 3 BED 16 X 2.0 = 32 STALLS *GUEST 320 X 0.33 =106 STALLS TOTAL REQUIRED 645 STALLS *RESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKING: 106 STALLS 57 STALLS ON GRADE 49 STALLS (PRK'G STRUCTURE) 12. PARKING RATIO 2.0 STALLS/DU 4-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LEGEND RESIDENTIAL GARAGE STRUCTURE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL 3-STORY WALK-UP RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL AMENITY A1.1PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 380 379 21'-6"10'-0" 116'-5" 35'-10"21'-6"10'-0"65'-2 1/2"116'-5" 17'-0"21'-6"10'-0" 21'-6"10'-0" LEVELS 2&3 LEVEL 1 LIVINGROOM 12'-0"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATH KITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C.10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-4"LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CBKITCHEN BATH W/D CBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CBBATH W/D FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CBLIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CBKITCHEN BATH W/D CBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CBBATH W/D FIXED ISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CBBATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM 10'-6"7'-8 1/2"10'-6"10'-6" BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRYKITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM DESK LIVINGROOM 12'-0"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATHKITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM DESK 10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"16'-11 1/2" LIVINGROOM 11'-0"x13'-7" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" KITCHEN W/D BALCONY 5'-0"x8'-0" ENTRY BATH W.I.C. PATIO 8'-4"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" BATH ENTRY ENTRY W/D SLEEPING 8'-10"x8'-4" CLOSET DIN KITCHEN PATIO 8'-4"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" BATH ENTRY W/D SLEEPING 8'-10"x8'-4" CLOSET DIN KITCHEN A3 35'-10"17'-0"62'-2"6'-0"A2 S1 S2 A3 B1A1B1 A2 S1 S2 A3A 6'-0"LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE | UPLAND, CA 91786 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866(714) 639-9860 ARCHITECTS ORANGE A R C H I T E C T S O R A N G E FOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST SITE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DATE: 11-05-19 JOB NO.: 2019-283PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 1/8"=1'-0" 24'0 8'4'16' BUILDING SUMMARY 3-STORY WALK-UP A1.2PRELIMINARY BUILDING PLANS - 20 PLEX (SMALL) BUILDING SUMMARY 3-STORY WALK-UP 381 380 65'-2 1/2"LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATHKITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATH KITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CBKITCHEN BATH W/D CBLIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATH KITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. DININGROOM BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM DESK SLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CBBATH W/D FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CBLIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CBKITCHEN BATH W/D CBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CBBATH W/D FIXED ISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CB62'-2"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"5'-4"15'-6"5'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"21'-0"LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CB KITCHEN BATH W/DCBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CB BATH W/D FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CB BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRYKITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM DESK LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CB KITCHEN BATH W/DCBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CB BATH W/D FIXED ISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CB 136'-3 1/2" 21'-6"10'-0"35'-10"35'-10"10'-0"21'-6" 136'-3 1/2" 21'-6"10'-0"35'-10"35'-10"10'-0"21'-6"6'-0"LEVELS 2&3 LEVEL 1 A3 A2 S1 S1 A2 A3 B1 B1 B1 A2 S1 S1 A2 A3B 6'-0"LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE | UPLAND, CA 91786 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866(714) 639-9860 ARCHITECTS ORANGE A R C H I T E C T S O R A N G E FOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST SITE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DATE: 11-05-19 JOB NO.: 2019-283PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 1/8"=1'-0" 24'0 8'4'16'A1.3PRELIMINARY BUILDING PLANS - 23 PLEX (MEDIUM) BUILDING SUMMARY 3-STORY WALK-UP 382 381 LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATH KITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CBKITCHEN BATH W/D CBLIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATH KITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. SLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CBBATH W/D FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CBBATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRYKITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM DESK LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CB KITCHEN BATH W/DCBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CB BATH W/D FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CB LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CBKITCHEN BATH W/D CBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM DESK LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATHKITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATHKITCHEN FIXEDISLAND W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CBKITCHEN BATH W/D CBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CBBATH W/D FIXED ISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CBLIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CB KITCHEN BATH W/DCBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CB BATH W/D FIXED ISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CB LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CBKITCHEN BATH W/D CBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-4"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-2"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-2"x5'-2" KITCHEN FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR CB LIVINGROOM 11'-0"x13'-7" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" KITCHEN W/D BALCONY 5'-0"x8'-0" ENTRY BATH W.I.C. 10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6" BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM 7'-0"10'-6"10'-6" BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRYKITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM W/D CB BATH 7'-0"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"16'-11 1/2" LIVINGROOM 12'-0"x15'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x8'-2" BEDROOM 11'-6"x12'-6" BATH W.I.C. W/D COATS ENTRY ENTRY DININGROOM W.I.C. BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x13'-0" 10'-6"10'-6"10'-6" 206'-10" 21'-6"10'-0"35'-10"35'-10"35'-10"35'-10"21'-6"10'-0" 206'-10" 21'-6"10'-0"35'-10"35'-10"35'-10"35'-10"21'-6"10'-0" LIVINGROOM 11'-4"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-2"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-2"x5'-2" KITCHEN FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR CB W/D CB BATH 66'-2 1/2"63'-2"6'-0"LIVINGROOM 12'-0"x15'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x8'-2" BEDROOM 11'-6"x12'-6" BATH W.I.C. W/D COATS ENTRY DININGROOM W.I.C. BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x13'-0" LEVELS 2&3 LEVEL 1 A3 A2 S1 S1 S1 A3 A2 A2 B2 B1 B1 B1 B1A1 A3B A3B A2 S1 S1 S1A2A A2 B2 6'-0"A1.4PRELIMINARY BUILDING PLANS - 37 PLEX (LARGE) BUILDING SUMMARY LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE | UPLAND, CA 91786 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866(714) 639-9860 ARCHITECTS ORANGE A R C H I T E C T S O R A N G E FOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST SITE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DATE: 11-05-19 JOB NO.: 2019-283PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 1/8"=1'-0" 24'0 8'4'16' 3-STORY WALK-UP 383 382 BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM DESK BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 9'-4"x6'-10" W/D DROP ENTRY KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 12'-4"x16'-0" COATS W.I.C. DININGROOM UNIT A3 1 BDRM - 1 BATH LIVABLE AREA: 759 SQ. FT. BALCONY: 62 SQ. FT. UNIT A3A 1 BDRM - 1 BATH LIVABLE AREA: 749 SQ. FT. PATIO: 62 SQ. FT. UNIT A3B 1 BDRM - 1 BATH LIVABLE AREA: 739 SQ. FT. PATIO: 62 SQ. FT. 21'-6"39'-0"21'-6"39'-0"21'-6"39'-0"UNIT A2A 1 BDRM - 1 BATH LIVABLE AREA: 648 SQ. FT. PATIO/ BALCONY: 59 SQ. FT. LIVINGROOM 11'-4"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-2"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-2"x5'-2" KITCHEN FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR CBW/D CBBATH LIVINGROOM 12'-0"x15'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x8'-2" BEDROOM 11'-6"x12'-6" BATH W.I.C. W/D COATS ENTRY DININGROOM W.I.C. BATH BEDROOM 11'-0"x13'-0" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-6"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" BATH KITCHEN W/D BALCONY 7'-8"x5-5" DINING 7'-10"x8'-4" ENTRY W.I.C. BATH W.I.C. LIVINGROOM 11'-0"x13'-7"BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" KITCHENW/D BALCONY 5'-0"x8'-0" ENTRY BATH W.I.C. 17'-0" PATIO 8'-4"x5'-2" LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" BATH ENTRY W/D SLEEPING 8'-10"x8'-4" CLOSET DIN KITCHEN LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x8'-7" DININGROOM CB KITCHEN BATH W/DCBSLEEPING 8'-8"x8'-0" PATIO 11'-6"x5'-2" UNIT A2 1 BDRM - 1 BATH LIVABLE AREA: 648 SQ. FT. PATIO/ BALCONY: 59 SQ. FT. UNIT A1 1 BDRM - 1 BATH LIVABLE AREA: 619 SQ. FT. BALCONY: 40 SQ. FT.35'-2"UNIT S2 STUDIO LIVABLE AREA: 557 SQ. FT. PATIO/ BALCONY: 41 SQ. FT. UNIT S1 STUDIO LIVABLE AREA: 469 SQ. FT. PATIO/ BALCONY: 56 SQ. FT. 12'-1"35'-2"ENTRY 28'-4"22'-9"23'-7"35'-2"LIVINGROOM 11'-6"x14'-9" BEDROOM 11'-0"x12'-0" PATIO 11'-4"x5'-2" KITCHEN CB BATH W/D FIXEDISLAND DININGTABLE OR COATS ENTRY CB 23'-7"36'-2"ENTRY KITCHEN 35'-10"35'-2"43'-4"24'-0"UNIT B2 2 BDRM - 2 BATH LIVABLE AREA: 1106 SQ. FT. PATIO/ BALCONY: 94 SQ. FT. UNIT B1 2 BDRM - 2 BATH LIVABLE AREA: 961 SQ. FT. BALCONY: 42 SQ. FT. A1.5PRELIMINARY UNIT PLANS LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE | UPLAND, CA 91786 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866(714) 639-9860 ARCHITECTS ORANGE A R C H I T E C T S O R A N G E FOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST SITE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DATE: 11-05-19 JOB NO.: 2019-283PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 1/8"=1'-0" 24'0 8'4'16' 3-STORY WALK-UP 384 383 BATH FLEX ROOM 16'-9" X 18'-4" W/D COATSL. P. REF. DESK W.I.C. PATIO/BALC. 9'-4" X 4'-6" ENTRY UNIT A1 1 BEDROOM - 1 BATH NET LIVABLE: 581 SF PATIO/DECK : 57 SF W/D UNIT A2 1 BEDROOM - 1 BATH NET LIVABLE: 672 SF PATIO/DECK : 69 SF DESK LIVING 13'-4" X 11'-6" BEDROOM 11'-8" X 11'-0" PATIO/BALC. 10'-0" X 8'-0" P. REF. KITCHEN REPOSITIONABLEISLAND DINING BATH W.I.C. COATS W.I.C. BATH L. COATS P.REF. LIVING 13'-2" X 14'-4"BEDROOM 12'-2" X 13'-7" PATIO/BALC. 8'-3" X 7'-0" REPOSITIONABLEISLAND KITCHEN DINING 7'-8" X 8'-0" W/D BATH LIVING 12'-4" X 13'-0" DINING 10'-0" X 10'-0" PATIO/BALC. 12'-0" X 6'-0"CBP. REF. L.W.I.C. W.I.C. BEDROOM 11'-0" X 12'-6" BEDROOM 11'-10" X 15'-0" KITCHEN BATH CBW/D COATS W.I.C. BATH L. COATS P.REF. LIVING 13'-2" X 14'-4"BEDROOM 12'-2" X 13'-7" PATIO/BALC. 8'-3" X 7'-0" REPOSITIONABLEISLAND KITCHEN DINING 7'-8" X 8'-0" W/D L. BEDROOM 12'-0" X 13'-0" W.I.C. BATH BATH 12'-0" X 9'-10" BEDROOM REF. PATIO/BALC.8'-10" X 6'-8" 11'-0" X 14'-2" LIVING P. L.DW KITCHEN W/D COATS W.I.C. 9'-0" x 7'-2"DINING COATSKITCHEN REF.P. W.I.C. W.I.C.BATH L. W/D PATIO/BALC. 10'-8" X 6'-8" L.BATH W.I.C. LIVING 13'-0" X 15'-4" DINING 9'-0" X 9'-6" ENTRY BEDROOM 12'-0" X 13'-4" BEDROOM 11'-0" X 12'-0" BEDROOM 11'-0" X 11'-0" BATH KITCHEN CB CB LIVING 12'-8" X 11'-0" DINING 9'-0" X 10'-0" PATIO/BALC. 10'-8" X 9'-10" W.I.C. W.I.C. BEDROOM 12'-10" X 11'-0" BEDROOM 11'-6" X 11'-6"BATH L. L. COATS ENTRY W/D UNIT S1 STUDIO - 1 BATH NET LIVABLE: 600 SF PATIO/DECK : 43 SF UNIT A3 1 BEDROOM - 1 BATH NET LIVABLE: 788 SF PATIO/DECK : 81 SF UNIT A4 1 BEDROOM - 1 BATH NET LIVABLE: 755 SF PATIO/DECK : 58 SF UNIT B1 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS NET LIVABLE: 1,069 SF PATIO/DECK : 73 SF UNIT B2 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS NET LIVABLE: 1,066 SF PATIO/DECK : 58 SF UNIT B3 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS NET LIVABLE: 1,047 SF PATIO/DECK : 59 SF UNIT B4 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS NET LIVABLE: 1,155 SF PATIO/DECK : 102 SF UNIT C1 3 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS NET LIVABLE: 1,400 SF PATIO/DECK : 71 SF LIVING 10'-1" X 10'-9" KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM 10'-0" X 11'-5" W.I.C. BATH BEDROOM 11'-4" X 11'-0" W.I.C. BATH LIVING 11'-6" X 13'-8" A1.6PRELIMINARY UNIT PLANS LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE | UPLAND, CA 91786 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866(714) 639-9860 ARCHITECTS ORANGE A R C H I T E C T S O R A N G E FOOTHILL MILLIKEN WEST SITE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA DATE: 11-05-19 JOB NO.: 2019-283PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 1/8"=1'-0" 24'0 8'4'16' 4-STORY WRAP 385 384 11-05-19 386 385 11-05-19 387 386 11-05-19 388 387 11-05-19 389 388 11-05-19 390 389 391 390 392 391 11-05-19 L1 Exhibit C 393 392 Letter of Justification The environmental setting/existing site conditions, natural features and any proposed changes to same. The site is approximately 17.12 acres of vacant infill land, with existing public improvements including curb and gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, and traffic signals, the portion of the site and the adjacent street frontage. An OmniTrans stop with a turnout servicing routes 82 and 85 is located on the northeastern edge. The site is adjacent to a developed retail center, Terra Vista Commons. The site has significant north-south fall of approximately 20 feet from Church Street to Foothill Blvd. The ultimate site and grading plans will have to be designed to accommodate, not only the existing edge conditions at perimeter streets, but also to tie-in to the existing improvements at the retail center. There are no notable natural features, as the site has been owned and maintained in a developable state as part of the Terra Vista Community Plan for decades. The proposed land uses and how they are justified under the applicable zoning regulations. The site is zoned "Terra Vista Community Plan" (TVCP} and described as a mixed use community (MFC} in the TVCP. However, the site was designated as Mixed Use Area #3, Terra Vista, in the city's General Plan Update in 2019. At that time, the site's land use was modified and conflicting language with the Community Plan was enacted. Due to the General Plan being the city's guiding document, the Community Plan will be amended by staff to conform the TVCP to the General Plan. The land uses proposed within the development would be compatible with the Mixed Use designation of the City General Plan and the site has been designed to achieve many of the goals outlined in the General Plan. The proposed project will provide a mix of residential and non-residential uses immediately adjacent to an existing retail center. The project is proposed at a significantly higher density than the residential area to the north of Church Street and the increased density is consistent with the City’s goal of achieving greater densities on vacant parcels located between Foothill Blvd. and Church St. Compatibility: Discuss the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed land uses and how they will not create unusual noise, traffic or other conditions that may be objectionable or detrimental with other permitted uses in the vicinity. Describe how the proposed project would "fit" into the surrounding context. The development is located at the northwest corner of Foothill and Milliken, one of the busiest intersections in Rancho Cucamonga. Many of the existing developments along Foothill are commercial, including the proposed development's neighboring parcel directly adjacent to the west. Along this immediate area of Church, many of the existing developments are residential, specifically multifamily; this development, as proposed would be consistent with that along its northern edge. At the southeast corner of this site, the proposed mixed-use, four-story building to be located directly on the corner of Foothill Blvd. and Milliken Ave. will provide not only high- density residential appropriate to the area but also additional commercial/retail space directly fronting Foothill Blvd. Exhibit D 394 393 Both the residential and commercial components of the proposed development will be managed by the developer/owner, a company with decades of experience managing high- quality residential for-rent and commercial/retail properties. The site plan has been designed to encourage pedestrian and vehicular connection between the mixed-use components within the site and also to encourage vehicular and pedestrian access from adjacent areas. The project as proposed would be a complement to the existing neighborhood and add a dynamic new type of development to this area of the City. The proposed project would: 1. Replace vacant land at a prominent city intersection with a high-quality development; 2. Provide a denser, more urban feeling, mixed use community that potentially reduces vehicular trips while encouraging pedestrian and bike connectivity; 3. Attract renters-by-choice to a lifestyle rental community, with design concepts and elements that have been proven popular in the past and provide a unique rental opportunity in the form of the four-story “wrap” building with ground-floor commercial uses. 4. Generate residential rooftops that would patronize the existing retailers; 5. Attract its own retail customers, who would spill over to the existing retailers; 6. Maintain land use consistency with its adjacent existing developments, while also utilizing mixed use planning techniques to achieve the goals the City has for developable parcels along Foothill Blvd. List any particular questions or design elements you desire Commission comments upon. Key areas we want to explore with the Commission: 1. Their reaction to the four-story, mixed-use apartment/commercial building as a new typology for Rancho Cucamonga. 2. The onsite circulation which breaks the overall parcel into smaller “blocks” by providing east/west and north/south vehicular and pedestrian access through the site. 3. Their reaction to the architectural style proposed for the buildings. 395 394